Citation
Mint Place

Material Information

Title:
Mint Place
Creator:
Bell, Edward P.
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of architecture)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Architecture

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Edward Bell. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
T he si
Presented
s Booklet.
IS, 1984
by
Edward Bel 1


Ili nt
pfnj i0 ct Title;
A n a r c h i t e c t u r a 1 t h e s i s p r Design and Planning, Universi p a r t i a .1 f u 1 fill m e n t o f t h e r o f M a s t e r a f A r c h i t s c t u r e.
esentsd to ty of Color sauirements
the Co11 eg e o
a d o a t Denver i
for the degt 0
Edward P. Bell
Spring, 1984
Qat» n11p



a usn
trS6T
op IB JO TO 3 â–  4-0
I5JBA TUf
u t? ui ..4 i-S'L.j 3 b s 4 -,y\ ui uj o 3
psAOjdde s t i xeg pjBMpg +o sis a 144 a 14
T I &8


I ’ d 1 i k e to than k nri'; / wits, now, for
a 11 she ■' s dons 3. n cl ■f or wh •:B t'. 1 1 i n
our •f | » +• ! I K" s


Di rectory
Introduct i on.................................................. 1
Project Statement.............................................. 4
Objectives and Goals............................................. 5
Description and Location....................................... 7
History o-f the City............................................. 8
City Character.................................................. 11
Populati on Employment Educati on
Economic Characteristics
Recreation and Culture
Medical/Professional Facilities
Regional Climate.................................................13
Micro Climate Charts
Solar Chart
Geology and Soils................................................. 17
Site Data......................................................... 19
Vacinity Map
Site Plan Analysis Legal Description Ownershi p Valuation
Neighborhood Description Property Description
Narrative Site Analysis.......................................... 20
Site Analysis Maps............................................... 2 2
Land-Use Sun Path Tra-f-f ic Sewer Water
Views and Vacinity
Zoning...........................................................2 7
General Regulations Zoning District Map Ordinance Review


8u1k ReguI at ion s Floor Area Ratios Uses A11 owed Pr emi urns
Loading Requirements Parking
Code Requi rements-............
Fire Zone
Occupancy Class!fication Construction Type Maximum Height Occupant Load Exits
Handicap Requirements.........
Retail Elements Analysis......
. 30
. 35 . 3 6
Program.
3 8
Site Development Requirements Office Residenti al Retai1
Program Adjustment Cost Estimate
Guidelines far Site Development Def i ni ti one Efficiency Ratios Building Cost Estimate Notes
Desi gn Checklist Schedule........
Appendices......
Bibliography Aids
Engineers Reports Utility Contacts Surveyed Nap Buyer Profile Arti cles
Acknowledgements Footnotes
4 9
51
53
Conclusion
54


Introduction
This thesis is an investigation of the issues surrounding urban housing as an element in a mixed-use project, Living in the city is inherently desireable. The city posseses qualitites that make it an interesting place to dwell, and, in a contained area, the interaction of systems creates tension which is vital and dynamic yet exhausting. The density o-F the city creates its own problems, yet, in that collection of forces, an exuberance and vitality is generated. It is the diverse nature of the city which produces interest and opportunity. It makes the city a unique dwelling place.
In reaction to natural forces, the city forms a multi-scaled organism. It can be viewed on at least three scales:
1. human scale
2. the neighborhood
3. the city
Ultimately, human scale is the most important of the three, because that is how we see the city and determine its value. I think it can be shown that by recognizing the city on these three levels a more humane urban environment can be designed. Each element in the overall composition can be measured against its ability to interact on the human scale. Assuming this, it would then be possible to measure the success of the city as a whole, like the city of Prague which is mentioned as a city unsurpassed as an urban entity because on every level, streets, buildings, blocks and plazas, the city is humane, it serves its inhabitants.
At the first level, human scale, are issues about home, safety, and the relation to the street, Some implications of these basic human needs in a mixed—use project are: how is the residence combined with the various public elements which make up a mixed-use project? and how is privacy provided while maintaining a close relation with the city? Access to the city with the option to withdraw to private or personal space easily, is a measure of the success of the city at the human scale. My project will respond to the city on a human scale by recognizing the limit of participation with the city and the human need for solitude, personal safety and the image of home.
Beyond the issue of intimate or human scale, is the question of how a building responds to the district. What is the natural relationship between historical structures and new buildings? Sensativity to historic context and the adaptive reinterpretation of those forms is possible and desirable. My project will recognize the importance of its historical context and show that by its presence it has helped to define and benefit the area.
Finally, while recognizing the sense of place and responding to the neighborhood, the design must image itself as a basic element in the larger context of the community and the city, It is in recognition of the house as the basic element in the city that this project has been prcDOsed. The Denver Central Business District currently lacks a housing base. That situation has
resulted in an urban core which is usually vacant after work
hours leaving the impression of the city as a dead and inhospitable place. The city has responded with programs to provide
greater amenities in the area and to encourage increased housing.


In the B-7 district, which is now composed largely of warehouses and small business operations, a sense of neighborhood is absent. The cities growth has, for the most part, ignored this area since 1893 and the decline of the railroad has meant the demise of the once great hotels found here. More recently, the area has experienced an increase in interest and economic activity. Some housing projects have been built but they’ve resulted in housing which is insensitive and dimensionally inhumane. In this project I accept the premise that housing is an essential ingredient in the health of the city. I believe that the benefits of urban housing are considerable. The city has expressed the need. I propose a potential solution, My response will address the city on three design levels. It will demonstrate the possibility for design to engender vitality and a quality of life on the human level, within the context of the neighborhood, the district, and the city.


FORWARD
Project Statement; This pr housing issues. Primary to ’30’s is the relationship of core. Urban analysists hav perminant residents in the decay, promoting the image syndrome whereby the urban next morning, the loss of suburbs, etc. The project i solution which recognises th in the city and effectively urban dwelling.
oject is an investigation of urban the issue of urban housing in the housing to the vitality of the urban e begun to recognize the value of core city as a way of stabilizin of the city, avoiding the 9 to core is vacated from evening to the tax bases due to the flight to the ntent is to provide an urban design e inherent desireabi1ity of housing utilizes the unique opportunities of
uuo


Objectives and goals
My objective is to design an urban building which includes housing, retail, and office space. It is my goal to realize the potentials of this particular site in such a way that the historic context is preserved and enhanced, the relationship to the 16 th St. Mall is exploited, the opportunity for local employment and entertainment is promoted. By doing so, I hope to establish an architype of urban housing which is a more desireable and reasonable alternative to other types of city housing.
5


"I don’t believe that making beautiful buildings means making 'good Looking ’ buildings... I do not believe that beauty can be deliberately created. Beauty evolves out of a Will TO BE that may have its first expression in the archaic. Compare F'aestum and the Parthenon. Archaic Paestum is the beginning... F'aestum inspired the Parthenon. The Parthenon is considered more beautiful, but the F’aestum is still more beautiful to me. It presents a beginning within which is contained all the wonder that may follow in its wake." (Louis I, Kahn)


Description and Location
The site is located on 16th Street between Market and Blake Streets. The area is within the Lower Downtown District and the zoning is B-7, historic preservation. F.A.R.'s are 2:1 but with premiums can be up to 4:1. The Lower Downtown District, hereafter referred to as L.D.D., is bordered on the northwest by the rail-yards at the edge of the Central Platte Valley. This is the area where the city of Denver was originally founded. The district is bordered on the southeast by the Skyline Urban Renewal Project area, by Speer Boulevard, Cherry Creek, and the Auraria Campus on the southwest edge. On the northeast border of the district, marked by 20th Street, is an area earmarked for preservation and improvement as a residential zone.
The site is directly across from the recently completed RTD shuttle terminal, located at the terminous of the 16th Street Mall. The area has been marked recently by a series of building programs. Amoung the projects recently completed (within the last 5 years) are several office developments including the St. Elmo Hotel restoration, Market Street Center, the Alamo, the Guaranty Bank, and the RTD offices and headquarters.
Other recent developments in the area include:
Housing-The Bath and Racquet Club
Retai1-Market Street Center, Dave Cooks
Entertainment-Denver Center for the Performing Arts
Hotel-Oxford Hotel
The site is close to Larimer Street, a prominent tourist attraction, the Denver Center for the Performing Arts, a entertainment complex housing film theatres, playhouses, and the Denver Center Auditorium, and includes facilities for the Denver Symphony Orchestra. The site is within blocks of Union Station, and the Cherry Creek Bikeway which connects to the Greenway system along the Platte River.
Other features within walking distance of the site are: The Art Museum The Denver Public Library Auraria Higher Education Center Skyline Park
The 16th Street Pedestrian Mall


History of the City
Originally settled at the confluence of the South Platte River and Cherry Creek, the two towns of Auraria and Denver merged into one, forming the city of Denver on November 17, 1858.
Colorado became a state in 1376, and the capitol was established in Denver. Economically the city functioned as a regional marketplace. The gold rush of 1349 swept theough the area leaving it virtually untouched. By 1375 minerals had been discovered in the mountains west of Denver creating a second rush for gold and launcing a period of robust development from 1375 to 1392. Early development was almost entirely out of wood and massive fires swept the city at the end of the 19th century, destroying major portions of the city.
The silver crash in 1393 initiated the end of an era and signaled a condition which has become characteristic of this city, cycles of boom and bust. As the area recovered from the crash it was led into a period of great civic pride and building which resulted in many of the major civic buildings and the park systems existing in the city today. The push to build Denver into the Queen City of the Plains was orchestrated by then Mayor Speer who was inspired by the City Beautiful movement which resulted from the Columbian Exposition of 1393. Examples of the work completed at this time are the Civic Center, including the City and County Building, the Greek Theatre and Voorhees Memorial, Union Station, and the pavillions in City Park and Cheeseman Park. The parkway system was initiated and the Zoological Gardens and Natural History Museums were founded.
At the time of the great Depression of the 1930’s major projects were concluded and the period was marked by austerity. Building codes were relaxed, and zoning was made permissive to encourage new construction. Many homes were converted to rooming houses and single-family residences were made into apartment complexes.
After World War II, when the soldiers returned home, Denver experienced another boom period of rapid housing construction and outward expansion. The Zoning Ordinance originally adopted in 1926 was significantly relaxed to attract more intensive
development in the central city residential areas, such as Capitol Hill and North Capitol Hill, and to intensify commercial development in the Central Business District.
In the years following W.W. II the city began annexing areas on its edges, the gridiron street pattern was replicated on the landscape and the outlying areas came in to competition with the mother city. Shopping centers had taken hold and were producing fierce competition to the retail areas in the Central Business District. Retail establishments were closing, and comething needed to be done to shore up Downtown and its employment opportunities and tax base.
Ambitious urban renewal programs were undertaken, including Auraria, Avondale, to the northwest of Downtown, and Skyline, to prepare land for housing and commercial redevelopment.
Two of the most significant changes that occurred in the decade of the 1970’s were in demographic characteristics and residential ownership patterns. Family sizes became small, with


more singles, young and old, living together. Minority proportions of the population grew rapidly, but the average household size declined substantially. The advantages of condominium ownership under federal tax laws persuaded many to convert apartments to condominiums, and the market demand for such units boomed.
From 1970-1975, 4,500,000 square feet of new construction
occured in the downtown area on a base of 23,422,400 square feet of floor space in 1970, a 16.27. increase. From 1975-1980, the rate of increase surged to over 20%, leading two a total of almost 35,000,000 square feet of downtown by 1980, not counting parking structures.
The focus of the 1980’’s is the enormous office construction downtown, some construction in the concentric rings around downtown, the concentration of new development on the periphery of the city in the far southwest, northeast, and southeast portions of the City.
"Leap Frog" and low-density sprawl development on the outside edges of the urban area is wasteful of public resources.
It requires construction of new public facilities and utilities, while existing ones in the already developed areas go underutilized. For example, Denver's public schools are operating at 60% of design capacity, while suburban districts are raising taxes to build schools. This type of regional imbalance draws funds away from use in enhancing the quality of life.
History of the Site
In 1860, spurred by the gold rush, the brothers Austin and Milton Clark from Pennsylvania joined forces wiht E.H. Gruber ?< Company. They erected a bank and mint building at 1410 16th Street, the corner of 16th and Market, at a cost of $5,000.
The company opened its doors on July 20, 1860, purchasing
gold dust form the miners and minting $5 and $10 gold coins. The performance of the company earned it the. reputation of being the best financial organization of the pioneer days in Denver.
The two-story structure was so luxuriously furnished that it emerged as one of the show places of Denver, and as an example of Denver's "prosperity and modernity."
In April 1862 an Act of Congress prohibited the private minting of coins and extablished a Denver Mint. A year later the U.S. Government acquired the Clark Gruber S< Company premises for the sum of $25,000, and established Denver's first U.S. Mint. The original building was remodeled and an addition made to it.
In 1864 Gruber withdrew form the company which had retained banking facilities on the premises, and the Clark brothers and four other Denverites founded the First National Bank, which acquired the bank facilities in May 1865.
A new mint was proposed at a new location, and in 1895 the U.S. Mint ceased operations at 1410 16th Street. Before closing its doors, some $30,000 worth of gold dust was recovered from the floors in the final sweep-up.
In 1906 the property was sold to Charles Boettcher, and used for the storage of onions and potatoes until 1907 when the building was torn down.


Boettcher built a new two-story 22,500 square -foot brick and concrete building on the site in 1907 at a cost of $25,000. The building known as the "Mint Block" comprised ground floor retail units and offices above, standing at 1410 16th Street until August, 1981.
Reprint from press release.
10


City Character
Population: Population trends and -figures for the greater metropolitan area vary considerably from Denver’s. The 1980 U.3.
census lists Denver’s population at 492,365. Comparing that figure to the 1970 population figure of 514,673, it is seen that the population of Denver has dropped significantly, the annual percentage change was -.04. On the other hand, the population of the greater metropolitan area, in 1980 was 1,618,461, an increase when compared to the 1970 census figure.
In the overall forecast for metropolitan population, for the year 2000, it is anticipated that the population will be over 2.5 million. Denver, on the other hand, is expected to remain relatively constant at approximately 550,000 persons, and that figure includes some small positive growth approximations for the city of Denver after the year 1980.
Employment: The major sources of employment income in the Denver
area are services, goverment and trade. In these sectors, trade in wholesale and retail accounted for the greatest number of jobs in 1980. Jobs in the service sector and government, including military, accounted for the second and third greatest sources of jobs in 1980. According to DRC0G forecasts, by the year 2000 the relationship of job ratios in each of these sectors will remain similar, with employment in trade accounting for over 357,000 jobs. The U.S. Department of Commerce forecasts differ from DRCQG estimates listing services as the largest employment sector supplying over 339,000 jobs while the trade sector is expected to provide approximately 324,000 jobs by the year 2000. Comparing the DRC0G estimate for employment in the year 2000, the metropolitan area will provide approximately 623,000 jobs and of those jobs, 177,000 will be available in the CBD.
Education: In the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)
year 1980, 80.2 7 of the population over 25 years of age are high school graduates. Of the 1,341,905 persons over the age of 25 in the area, 24.3/1 have completed 4 or more years of college and the median years of school completed is 12.97.. Amoung men and women over the age of 25, 81.27 of men in the area have completed high
school compared to 79.27 of women. In the same age group approximately 100,390 men have completed 5 or more years of college â– compared to 53,670 women, apparently making men the better educated sex in the Denver area.
Economic Characteristics: In a 1973 study, the U.S. Department of Commerce estimated metropolitan income growth, figured in 1972 dollars, for private income amoung residents, to be 15.5 billion dollars by the year 2000. The United Bank of Denver in a 1983 study, projecting only as far as 1985, estimated private income to be approximately 10.3 billion compared to the 9.8 billion projected by the U.S. Dept, of Commerce.
Recreation and Culture: Of the five major cultural facilities in the city of Cenver, the Denver Zoo is the most popular. In 1932 the facility recorded 1,079,493 visitors. The second most
11


popular -facility in the city is the Natural History Museum, with a record for 333,426 visitors in 1982. The Public Library system is ranked third in popularity with 750,000 visitors, the Art Museum is fourth with 352,964 visitors and the least most popularfaci1ity is the Botanic Gardens, with 199,210 visiters in 1982.
The city of Denver includes approximate!y 111 small parks, 73 large parks, 37 recreation centers usually associated with a large park, 10 community centers, and 15 senior centers. The municipal park and recreation systems include 7 golf courses, 22 swimming pools, 143 tennis courts, 13 lighted playing fields, 13,6000 acres of mountain park area and 78 miles of hike-bike trai1s.
Medical/Professional Facilities: The city has within its limits 12 major hospitals, 9 health stations and center. There are 146 public schools, 11 of which are senior high schools, and not included in these figures are 3 special education facilities.


Regional Climate
Although Denver does experience seasonal extremes, the city enjoys temperate climate most of the year. The annual mean temperature i s 52 degrees Fahrenheit, with a summer mid-day average o-f 85.6 degrees and a January average high temperature of 42.6 degrees. Temperatures in the winter are below freezing for a majority of the nights and occasionally fall below 0. In the summer, temperatures are generally in the 70-90 range,
occasionally exceeding 100. Daily and seasonal temperature variations and seasonal temperature variations and extremes do require special attention in design plans and construction techneques and materials.
Frecipitation. Little moisture is derived from precipitation in Denver. The average annual rainfall is 12.9 inches. Average annual snowfall in Denver is 55.4 inches, but it is normally light and melts quickly in the intense sunlight. The area is classified as a semi-arid climate and the depth to groundwater requires that non-indigenous plants be watered. All of Denver’s municipal water supply is transported to the city from mountain reservoirs. Therefore, landscape design should consider water consumption and conservation opportunities.
Wind. Although wind is normally calm to light, occasionally it can reach high levels. Chinook winds from the west in a downslope configuration can have a warming effect in winter. Denver requires wind analysis of only its tallest buildings prior to issuing of building permits.
Air Quality. Because of Denver’s location in a valley immediately east of the high mountains, the continental air mass moves over the region at a high level, leaving a packet of air occasionally trapped over Denver. When that air contains heavy concentrations of pollutants and becomes trapped, due to temperature inversions, the result can be unpleasant and possibly dangerous. Efforts to alleviate or control the air quality in Denver have begun to show marked progress and development of other sources of pollution, such as polluting industries is discouraged. At the present time the chief source of pollution is automobiles.
Sunlight. Denver averages over 300 clear days a year and consequently solar design considerations are a strong possibility in this city and surrounding areas.
13


Microclimate Charts
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Degree Days Heating 108S 902 369 525 ncr*’ xL w •«' 30
based on Cooli ng 0 0 0 0 o 110
65 deg. F. Jul y Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Heating 0 0 120 408 768 1004
Cooli ng 24S 208 54 5 0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
F'reci pi tati on Normal .61 . 67 1.21 1.93 2. 64 1.93
in inches Max 1.44 1.66 2.89 4. 17 7.31 4.69
water eq. Mi n . 01 . 01 . 13 . 03 . 06 . 10
July Aug Sept â–¡ct Nov Dec
Normal 1.73 1.29 1. 13 1. 13 .76 . 43
Max 6.41 4.47 4.67 4. 17 2.97 2.34
Min . 17 . 06 T . 05 . 01 . 03
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Snaw/ice Max 23.7 13.3 29.2 28.3 13. 6 * •«'
Jul y Aug Sept â–¡ct Nov Dec
Max 0. 21.3 31.2 39. 1 39. 1 30.3
Time Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Relat i ve 05 63 66 67 63 70 71
Humi di ty i 1 45 43 41 38 33 36
Pet. 17 4S 42 40 35 36 36
r-yrr 63 64 63 59 60 60
T i me July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
05 70 69 69 64 68 65
11 36 36 30 35 44 44
17 35 35 35 rrer 49 50
57 53 60 53 66 64
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Wi nd Mean Speed 9wl 9.3 10. 10.4 9. 6 9. 1
m. p . h. Jul y Aug Sept â–¡ct Nov Dec
S. 5 3. 2 3.2 8.2 3. 7 9.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Pet. o-f 72 71 70 67 65 71
Sunshine Jul y Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
71 72 75 73 65 68


Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Avg. Daily Sol ar OOJ-j 325 425 525 575 675
Radi ati on s Langley's/day July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
625 575 475 375 275
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Mean Sky Cover tenths, sunrise 5,5 5,9 6, 1 6, 1 6,2 3, 1
to sunset Jul y Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Mean Sky Cover tenths, sunrise to sunset 4,9 4,9 4,3 4,4 5,4 5, 3
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Temperatures F deg. Max 42.6 45. 3 51.3 60. 2 69.5 30. 6
Min 17.4 20. 3 26. 1 34.3 43. 9 52. 7
Mean 30. 1 32. 3 33. 7 47. 5 56.7 66.7
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Max 86.5 35 76.9 65. 5 52.6 44. 5
Min 53.3 57. 6 48.5 37. 6 26. 6 19. 6
Mean 72.7 71.3 62.7 51.6 39.6 -r t OjL * O
(A o- ui


SOLAR CHART-DENVER
LAT. 39°50,N LONG104°50'W
ELEVATION 5280 FT.
«0 N
I I
1 i Ml' V'X-'
0/.V


Geology and Soils
□n Site. The soil on site is composed of fill, clayey sand to sandy clay, is slightly gravelly, or fine to coarse grained sand to a depth of approximately 10". Below the sandy layer is a layer of gravel which varies in depth but is approximately IS’ deep. A layer of sand, medium dense to dense, moist to wet, with a texture which runs from fine to coarse with occasional cobbles, lies below the gravel bed. In parts there is a 1ayer of sandstone, slightly clayey to clayey, of varying texture which is very hard and moist. Below these layers, at a-depth of approximately 30’ from the serface is the claystone bedrock. The bedrock is slightly sandy, very hard, medium moist, and blue gray in appearance. Ground water is approximately 20’ below the surface.
Refer to soil engineer’s report.
1 7


) Regional activity centers and Denver CBD
18


Site Data
Site Plan Analysis;
A. Legal Description-Lot 29 to 32 inc. blk 42 E. Denver.
B. Property addresses- 1402—1418 16th Street is the same
as 1551-1561 Market Street.
C. Ownership: 1402- 1413 16th Street
Compwest Colo. Assoc. 7. Gooch and Wagstaff, Inc.
410 17th St. Suite 2330 Denver, Co. 30202
D. Valuation: 1402-1428 16th St.; assessed $24,360
Actual val ue-approx i matel y $150.00/sq. -ft. or $150. 00 x 12,000sq .-ft. = $1,375,000
Neighborhood Description:
The neighborhood surrounding the site is uneven in character. It is in a historic district, referred to as the Lower Downtown. The neighborhood was composed largely of warehouse facilities until the building boom of the 70’s at which time the area was marked by a number of renovation projects and new office development. The surrounding buildings are largely two and three story brick or stone structures. A number of new office projects were allowed to be built that were inconsistant with the existing texture and mass and as a result of the B-7 zone was inacted to more closely control the quality of the neighborhood.
Property Description:
The site is clear land. The site lies on the N.E. end of block 15, Map no. 2331-15 and fronts 16th St. The surface area is approximately 12,000sq. ft. Lot 1402-1413 was the site for the first Denver mint, established in 1862, on the site of the Clark Gruber & Co. bank and mint. The land was last cleared in 1931, when the Mint Block, built by Charles Boettcher in 1906, was torn down.
19


Narrative Site Analysis
My site is at the end of the 16 St. Mall and located within the edge o-f the historic perservation zone designated B-7. The area is composed o-f the last major collection of buildings le-ft from the turn of the century. To the northeast is the Central Business District. Below and to the southwest is the Cherry Creek, which flows into the Platte River about 400’ down stream. Beyond the Cherry Creek, which runs approximately north and south and parallel to Speer Blvd., is the Auraria campus. The campus is located on the site of the old town of Auraria, one of the original settlements. The town of Auraria was razed in the middle sixties as part of the Denver Urban Renewal effort. Most of that original town is gone except for a small amount of retail and warehouse functions on Wazee St. The historic Tivoli Brewery, were my grandmother attended plays as a child, has been saved and is now under reconstruction. The site is well outside the flood plain of the Cherry Creek since the creek has been channelized along most of its course through the city. To the northwest of the site is the historic train station, Union Terminal. The train station had been designated as the site for the proposed Convention Center, the plans for which have been discontinued for the time being, but are expected to be revived again. To the northwest, beyond Union Station, is the Central Platte Valley. The original settelment of Denver was built in the C.P.V. but was abandoned for higher ground in the direction of the existing city after the severe flood of 1363. The banks of the Platte are currently being developed into a system of parks called the Greenway Project. The gem of that development is the park at the confluence of the Cherry Creek and the Platte River, called Confluence Park. Pedestrian walkways and bike paths along the banks of the Cherry Creek, just two blocks from the discussed site, lead to Confluence Park and the Greenway system of parks.
The Valley is transversed by several roads connected to the interstate highway and the neighborhood areas, to the west and northwest. The major thoroughfares from the Valley which pass within a short distance of the site are, Speer Blvd., which> carries 38,000 vehicles on an average weekday, and 16th St., which carries 7,300 vehicles on an average day. 15th and 16th Streets border the site block on the southwest and northwest edges respectively.
In the area to the northwest of the site is the remainder of the of the B-7 zone. The B-7 zoning continues up to 23rd St. beyond which is the Curtis Park neighborhood area.
This area, which is also known as Lower Downtown, was rezoned B-7, inorder to preserve and improve the older structures that are architectual1y and/or historically significant. The zoning uses allow light industrial, general retail, wholesale services, offices and high density residential uses. The floor area ratio of the zone is 2:1 but with premiums can go to 4 times the site area. Uses are as varied as zoning allows.
Many of those original buildings are built of red brick. Cut stone was also used but is not commom in this particular area. Generally, the scale is uneven due to demolition and infill. The
20


area is dotted â– frequently two, structures are them -fill double turally. Often
The older
with parking lots, three or four story structures. Those dimensionally and rhythmically varied.
buildings are hi storic Many of
lots but express the twenty-five lot line struc-the street edge is marked with large picture windows and open bays. Older structures are almost always capped with cornices and show decorative detail. Newer structures are constructed more simply and lack decorative details even though alluding to their historic context in their choice of buiding materials. The most noticable inconsistency between the old and new is. scale. Many new buildings are twice the size of older
structures. The result is a course texture which imposes on the older buildings and I think, defeats the spirit of the zone.
04


17th St.






C/)
-LL
_i u
CO
1—I—IL
-1L
Wazee St.
Blake St.
Market St.
Larimer St.
21* LINE-
eiTE- AWAure>ie>-
Scale
~l
V
0 50 200
400


CO
ft
co
\_______L
+-*
CO
x!
ir\
J 1---------1---1"
Wazee St.
co
A
4->
CO
LJ—IL
*——— » =\
ipk â– 
-H
CO
-d
+>
C"
U
in
D

VIEW:*
3
Market St.
Larimer St.
PlTt
mw C^WFTFV^t
r "1 1


eiTt AHAL-Tfeie>-
Vifevye? /N4p VAotHrry
Scale
0 50 200
400


the zone lot front line which is part of the long dimension of any block.
Floor Area Premiums. In addition to the basic maximum gross -floor areas permitted under section 59-380(b)(1), floor area may be added through the premiums listed below. In no case, however, shall the additional floor exceed two times the zone lot area, and the total floor area which is the supplementary maximum gross floor area shall not exceed four times the zone lot area.
â– 'remi urns:
Premium for unenclosed arcade. Three square -feet of floor area for arcade which has a depth of twelve feet or less, or a height equal to or greater than the depth the periphery shall be
than
retai1, business
or
However, 25X entertainment
of
Premium for enclosed arcade. Two square feet of floor space for each square foot of enclosed arcade, provided
1. Two entrances to the street or plaza.
2. Minimum width of each entrance is 10 feet.
3. Minimum width between all bounding walls is 10 feet.
4. Average minimum height is 10 feet.
Premium for atrium. Three square feet of floor area for each square foot of atrium.
Premium for low level light area. Three square feet of floor area for each square foot of low level light area, provided:
1. It is located within fifteen feet of the front line of zone with 25X on its perimeter open to the street.
2. It is located between twenty and sixty feet above the street level.
3. It is located above a structure the front wall of which is located along the front line of the zone lot.
Premium for underground parking. 0.75 square feet of floor area from each square foot of underground parking. Parking surface a mimimum of 5 feet below street level.
Premium for enclosed plaza. Six square feet of floor arefcfor each square foot of enclosed plaza up to five percent of the zone lot area, provided:
1. At least orftentrance with a width of at least 15 feet and not more then fifty, located on the street.
2. Minimum depth of fifteen feet.
3. Contains extensive landscaping, artwork, fountains.
4. Is paved and has seating.
Premium for Residential. One square foot of floor area for each square foot of floor area maintained and operated as
28


dwel1i ngs.
Off Street Loading Requirements;
Location. On the same cone lot as the structure.
Authorization may be granted for on-street loading in some circumstances.
Amount of space required. The following amounts of off-street loading space shall be provided, plus and area or means adequate for maneuvering, ingress and egress. Each loading space shall be at least ten feet wide, twenty-si;-; feet long and
fourteen feet high. (260 sq. ft.)
Offices, hotels, and multi-family dwellings:
Sq. Ft. of Floor Area Up to 25,000
25.001 to 250,000
Sale at retai1:
Sq. Ft. of Floor Area Up to 15,000
15.001 to 50,000
50.001 to 200,000
â–¡ff Street Parking Requirements:
At least the following amounts of be provided. Refer to chart which structure for small cars shall be feet and for large cars shall be at
Required No. of Spaces
None
Two
Required No. of Spaces
None
â–¡ne
Two
off-street parking space shall follows. The width of parking at least eight and one-half least nine feet.
Parking Class Cne, Dwellings. There shall be one and one-half off-street parking spaces provided for each dwelling unit in a multiple-unit dwelling.
Parking Class Four, Retail Uses by Right. There shall be one parking space provided for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area contained in any structure containing a use by right.
Parking Class Nine, Office. There shall be one off-street parking space provided for each five hundred square feet of gross floor area contained in any structure.


BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS
Applicable Building Code Ordinance:
Denver Building Code, 1982 Edition
reference:
Fire Zone Designations 2
Sec. 1601(a)
Occupancy Classification: Townhousess H-3 Of -f i ce/retai 1 : F-2 Open/Closed Parking Structure: Restaurant: F-l
Table 5-A
G-3
irjt& fvw rtK® -Sec. 505(b)
H-3: II, 4-hour, unii mi ted Sec. 505(c)
F-2: II, 4-hour, 30,000 sq. ft. Table 5-C
G-3: II, 4-hour, 45,000 sq. ft. Sec. 1701
F-l: II, 4-hour, IS,000 sq. ft.
Occupancy Seperation Requirements: 1-Hour except between G-3 and H-3, 2-hours
Table 5-B
Exterior Bearing Wall Fire Ratings Group H-3, Type II Group F-2, Type II Group G-3, Type II Group F-l, Type II
Table 17-A Sec. 1903 (a)
Exterior Wall Openings Limitations: H-3, F-l, F-2, G-3; 20’ setback
(Qpeni ngs not permited 1 ess.r'tTian 5’ -from ■property lirj^ or center line of alley.)
Table 17-C Sec. 1903(A)(6)
Exterior Walls and Openings:
1. Nonbearing walls fronting on streets or yards having a width of at least 40’/1&egujdp rotected noncombustible materi al
2. Groups F,G,and , H occupancies Exterior bearing walls may be 2 hr. fire—resistive where openings
Interior Bearing Walls: 2 hr. fire rating Structural Frame Fire Rating: 2 hr. Perminant Partition Fire Rating: 1 hr. Floor Fire Rating: 1 hr.
Roof Fire Rating; 1 hr.
Table 17-A Table 17-A Table 17-A Table17-A
in


Maximum Floor Area Per Building
sec. 506 (b) 2
Area Increases
Seperation on 3 sides 1.00
Where public space, streets, or yards
more than 20 feet in width extend
along and adjoin 3 sides, the floor
area may be increase 2.57. for each
•foot by which the minimum width
exceeds 20’, but
not more than 100%.
Total area for over one story 2<_00
Total Increases 3.00
F-2, al1owable
F—1, al1owable
H-3, al1owable
G-3, al1owable
30.000 x 3 =
18.000 x 3 = unlimited
45.000 x 3 =
90.000 sq. ft.
48.000 sq. ft.
135.000 sq. ft.
Mixed Occupancy Ratios
actual. F-3 + actual. H-3 1
allow. F-3 allow. H-3
Limit per F— 1: F-3: H-3: S-3:
Story: one story
30.000 x 1.58 = unii mi ted
45.000 x 1.53 =
47,400/f1oor 71,100/f1oor
Maximum Height: 75’
F-i: At street level or F-2: 6 stories H-3: 3 stories G-3: 6 stories
at top of building
Occupant Load:
Table 33-A
H-3: 300 /occupant; assume 1000 /unit: yields 4 occupants/unit Retail (ground floor): 30 /'occupant; assume 900 /store; yields 30 occupants/store Office: 100 /occupant; assume 1000 /office;
yields 10 occupants/office Parking: 300 /occupant; assume 16,000
parking structure; yields 54 occupants Restaurant: 15 /occupant; assume 1000 restaurant, yields 66 occupants
Number of Exits Required: Sec. 3302(a)
when occ. greater than 10 Table 33-A
H-3: 1/unit Retail: 1/store Office: 1/office Parking: 2
Restaurant: 2 or more when occ. more than 50
31


Sec
Number o-f Stairs Required:
H-3: 1/unit, if necessary Retail: at street level Office: 2 if over 1000 on second fl. Mezzanines: 2 if over 2000 or 60’ in one direction.
Parking: 2 Restaurant:
3302(a)
Door Width Requirements: 3’ if exit
Stair Width Requirements:
Public: 36" min, 44" if occ. load greater than 50.
Private: 30" min.
(occupant load of 10 or less)
Minimum Plumbing Facilities:
Occupant load of less than 100 W.C.: 1 male, 1 female
Urinal: 1
Lavs.: 1 male, 1 female
Stairway Landing Requirements:
Maximum vertical distance between landings: 12.5’.
Minimum dimension same as width of stair.
Public Corridor Width Requirements:
44" Min.
Travel Distance Limits:
F-l:
Max. 5 0’ within unit
Max. 1 f 1 ight of stai rs
Max . i 50’ (200 if spr i n
Max. 00 ’ in open parki
Dead End Corridor Limits: Ma>
20'
Door Swing Requirements:
In direction of exit when serving an occupant load of 30 or more.
Sec. 3303 (d) Sec. 3305 (b)
Table 5-E-l, Table 5-F
Sec. 3305 (g)
Sec. 3305 (b)
Sec. 3320 (c) Sec. 3321 (b)
Sec. 3304 Sec. 3303 (b)
Stair Rail Requirements:
Handrails on at least one side, both if open on both sides
Extend rail minimum 6 beyond top and bottom of risers and within dwelling unit, no rails needed.
3


Sec. 1714
Balcony Rail Requirements:
Reqd. if 15" above grade Min. 42" high
Max. 9" clear space between intermediate rails.
Tempered glass, laminated safety glass or gratings may be substituted.
Riser/Tread Limits: Sec. 3305 (c)
Riser max. 7.5"
Run min. 10"
Ramp Requirements:
Same width as stairways Maximum slope
First -floor to grade: 1 in 12 All others: 1 in S Landings:
1 per 5’ o-f rise minimum length of 5’
Sec. 3306
Vertical Opening Limits and Fire Ratings: Sec. 1706 (a)
Type II: 2 hr. Table ■ 17—A
Sec. 3308 (a)
Exit Lighting Requirements: 1 foot candle at floor level Sec. 3312 (a)
Emergency Lighting Requirements: 1 foot candle at floor level Sec. 5310 (a)
Ceiling Height Mi mi mums: Sec. 3304 (c)
Corridors: 7' Sec. 3305 (b)
Stairs: 7' H-3: No portion less than 5' allowed with 7' over at least 50% of floor area. Sec. 3305


Mezzanine Restrictions: Sec. 402
Define as intermediate floor less than Sec. 1715 (b)
one third of total floor area in room Sec. 3302 (b>
Clear height of 7' required below 2 stairways to floor below required if over 2000 or over 60' in any direction.
Ventilation Requirements: see Chapter 52.
Roof Access Requirements: Sec. 3305 Penthouse Limitation:
Maximum 12' above roof
Not over 33% of supporting roof
3601
Sec


Unprotected if minimum of 20’ from
property line and housing only mechanical equipment.
Ak)pw/j AflmH jUftr j)u -jtu/rih ^lirru jhtrf/-—
Jmc mJjM wl- Mbwv Uu.
fol JM&U- H A MA skM/ sjMAwy
^ fj.'l cyQ, fp /tMWMw*-/ruP diM
it 44-11. Tkt/mm/m uw./mV diM* MiiiPl upMvrvji
it W. tf/Jw AnidltA' W-fim
jlrviH aJUL Jltifflw ^/W-Ar


Handicap Requirements
Residential: Sec. 510
H-2 -for over S unit clusters, one unit in 7 will be fully accessible, all doors shall be 32" nominal width except doors leading to uninhabitable areas.
Plumbing Facilities:
F-l, F-2, H-2 Occupancies shall
provide at least one water closet
and one lavatory for handicapped persons.
Toilet Requirements:
Compartments will be at least 36" in width with door swings at least 32" wide, and with 32" of space unobstructed by door swing. Grab bars at least 24" in length, 31" parallel to floor in height.
Lavatori es:
26" in width, 12" depth and 29" in height.
Maximum distance to rim - 34".
Handicapped Ramp Requirements:
For all building types, ramps shall not exceed a slope of 1 in 12.
Stair Landing Requirements:
A 25" by 42" space above the first floor in each stariway when exits useable by the handicapped are not provided. Required only in buildings with elevators to the upper floors.
35


Narrative Retail Space Analysis
In my study of mixed use projects and how they function, I’ve become more aware of how important the functions at the street are. Typically, in a mixed use project, the first floor is used for retail operations. This first floor use might include space for food msrchandising, service businesses or space for general retail operations. I have tried to analyze how these activities work and what ingredients are important to their success. An analysis of the elements I have found follows.
Retail Space Studies:
Relation to the Street
Establish a visual presence; assertive and inviting. Effective window placement allows pedestrians to walk within a distance which allows visual penetration, the effect of being within arms reach of merchandise. Elements of Draw Convi ence
Planned activities; the kind of regular scheduling which leads people to assume that some kind of activity should be going on.
Specialty shops which offer hard to get items Elements of the space which are inviting or pleasant; planting, food, historical allusion, sun, view, etc.
Di splay
Large picture windows
Use of vibrant, rich colors
Merchandise displays which exhibit to both sides of the window, interior and exterior, are most effective.
Fussy is better than too neat - at batlance of order and random elements makes items more interesting and implies items are intended for living. The machine aesthetic doesn’t work here.
Careful display implies quality merchandise.
Use of Color
Brightly colored merchandise with neutral colored display cases show items and balance visual draws.
Li ghti ng
Natural light produces rich colors and effectively contrast artificial lighting schemes.
Drop lights effectively highlight displays.
Skylights in public areas can be effective, dramatic elements or, if done poorly, annoying.
Architectural and Urban Design Elements
Clear interior circulation is very important, visual corridors draw people into and through the spaces. Merchandise displays need to be, or appear to be, arms reach.
Awnings: call cut the entrance display stores name offer protection to pedestrians
wi thin


Mixed Use
Those projects which seem to understand their sense o-f place, which resonate with the city and participate in the elements and life around, are the best projects.
Summary. In all retail stores, I’ve liked best, I see elements of the home. These projects provide security and sensory variety. Scales are carefully controlled. Colors are used to heighten effects and to add interest. Textures are varied. Displays are best when they become more interesting upon close inspection because of the inclusion of small scale elements - layers of interest. Arrangements which are too neat imply hands off. Elements of disarray, or random elements provide interest and imply that the items are meant for use, thereby making it easier to project those things into personal spaces. Good promotion captures a fantasy.
Mixed use projects start with ground floor uses which, when done well, incorporate all of the above. Mixed use must satisfy basic human needs, draw people and offer dramatic content. The elements which I think are required to do that are:
1. An image of security
2. Draws:
A. General - food, services, general items such as newspapers, entertainment, ( cabarets, and bars)
B. Specific - Demanded elements such as, tickets, fine food, designers clothing, jewelry, spice, coffee, tobacco, flowers, and books.
C. Location - At the crossroads or the end of an axis.
3. Dramatic Content ranges from pleasant to a festive atmosphere. It encompasses design elements with sensory variety in texture, scale, rhythm, and color. It also includes historical allusion or any other identifiable element which helps to distinguish a special sense of pi ace.


THESIS PROGRAM
Site Development:
The site has been clear since 197B. It is level and there is very little clutter on the site. Below grade are some of th- remains of past structures in the -form of brick rubble. In places parts of the old stone foundation exist and are not expected v.o cause any problems in excavation. Bedrock is located approx irately 40* below the surface and ground water is at a depth of about 22’.
Requi rements:
Totals
â– 25.000 Office
W, W 0
on: Office - One space/ Tf&O gross Retail - One space/ 7&0 gross Residential - One and lialfT uHTT'
Parking Calculation:

Square foot/space



oho cn
Program Adjustment
Assuming most premiums can be utilised, a 6:1 FAR reasonable.
Lot size = 12,500 sq. ft.
6 x 1 n A * 500 = 75, 000 sq. f t.
75,000 /1.2 (eff iciency r atio) = 62 , 500 net sq. £• +• ! L c
Assume 8750 sq. ft. ret ai 1 (from C 3. 1 c of 50 ’ f r ont 1 ot z oning)
62,5 oo sq. ft. - S75 0 = 5 3,750 s q. f t. n et.
507. net = housi ng = 26 ,e 75s q. ft. net 1.2 rr-r •» nnr — 5 Isi-U sq. ft
gross.
507. net = office 687 cr s q. ft. X 1.2 = 33 , 125 sq. , ft. gross.
26,8 75/ 1000 sq. â– f t . (av * unit si ze) = 26 . 8 unit 5 = 27uni ts.
Park ing
To tal gross sq. ft (75,O0) / "7 / / 50 = 100 spa ces rqrd.


V -i*
tfMLsfWH
Space Breakdown:
Office - 12,500/1500 = #8 Li mit/f1oor = 47,400 Sice - 1500 Users - General
Needs - Open space, flexible needs
Layouts -
Reception 15’ x 10’
Presidents Office 20’ x 20’
2 Smaller Offices 15’ x 15’
Storage 8’ x 10’
Conference 20’ x 20’
Computer Space 20 ’ x 10’
Sink-
Loading
IQtrium)__________________
Total 1455
Loading (one space/25,000)
Adj acenci es:
$


Large O-f-fice
12,500/ 2000
# 6
Users - Undetermined
Needs - Open space, -fie;-: the city Layout - i bl e 1ayout,
Recepti on 15’ x 10’
Presidents 0-f-fice 20’ x 20’
4 Smaller 0-f-fices 15’ x 10’
Storage 15’ x 15’
Conference 20’ x 20’
Computer Space 15’ x 10’
Sink
Access to Atrium__________
Total 2000
Loading (one space/25,000)
natural light, view o-f
Adj acencies:
<3


Xfcsr -'r,'
UtoNVP{ koH ? ci^gr Resi dences:
Size - 900/ one bdrm. 12,500/900 = #14
User - Singles, young couples, old couples without children Needs - Natural light, privacy, spacious -feel, southern exposure, views, access to court, individuality and
charm.
Layout -
1. Entry 5’x 8’
2. Living 10’ x 15’
3. Dining 10’ x 15’
4. Kitchen 10’ x 8’
5. Pantry 7’ x 8’
6. Bath - Public 5 ’ x 5 ’
1 lav.
1 w. c.
7. Bath - Private 5’ x 8’
2 lavs.
1 w. c.
1 bath/shower
8. Bedroom 11’ x 12’
closet n? .. / ? X- O
9. Study 10’ x 8’
10. Storage 5 ’ x 8 ’
11. Circulation 157. = 117
/[C’fo'x ri)
41


Residences: Large 12,500/1200 = #10
Size - 1200 Two Bedroom User - Same as above Needs - Same as above Layout -
Same as one bdrm except includes
Circulation 15% = 141 + 945 = 1086
Third bath = 40 is a possibility Entry closet
2nd Bdrm. Closet
Dressing Area
132
12
18


Retai1:
Restaurant 3000
Cafe/coffee Bar 1000
Jewelry Store 600
Drug Store 1200
Floral Shop 600
Laundry/Dry Cleaner 600
Seafood 600
Stati onery 400
Book/Mag. Store 600
Clothi nq 1500

Total 10,100
Loading (one space) 260
Adjacencies:


fti +>
Zoning Regulations
The site is within the B-7 business restoration zone. This zone is intended to preserve and improve older structures that are architectural 1 y or historically significant.. The zoning allows light industrial, general retail, wholesale services, offices and high-density residential uses. Additional floor area is allowed with the development of residential units, underground parking or open space areas. Building floor areas cannot exceed 2 times the site area, however, with premiums the floor area can be increased to 4 times the site area. The building mass is not controlled by bulk standards.
Location of Structures: no limitations Maximum Gross Area: base 2:1 F.A.R.
Maximum 6:1 with premiums including residential.
Off Street Parking: required for office 1 space/750 sq. ft. Off Street Loadings requirement varies with square feet of
servi ce.
Zoning Ordinance Overview:
Basic Maximum Gross Floor Area in Structures:
Not greater then 2:1. However, three types of areas are exempt from the calculation of gross floor area provided:
1. A setback area which extends a minimum of fifteen feet from all property lines not abutting a public street of the zone lot at a height of one hundred and sixty feet above the street level.
2. A low level light area which extends a. minimum of fifteen feet from the front line, is located between twenty and sixty feet above the street level and is located along the front line of the lot line. Such low level light area will receive the premiums explained in section 50-380(b)(3)d.
Basic Maximum Gross Floor Areas Excluded From Calculations.
A. Street level floor areas:
1. Within 50 feet of front line of lot
2. Areas with direct access to the street
3. Building walls facing the street with 507. of the facade devoted to display windows.
4. Retail, business, entertainment or cultural uses.
B. Floor area for dwelling units not exceeding two times the area on the zone lot with up to 507. of this area being used for other uses by right.
Uses Allowed:
Allowed uses are varied and extensive. They include most kinds of retail operations, office uses and light industrial. There are limitations on auto wrecking operations and the storage of dangerous or flamable materials. Parking is prohibited within space which extends form street level upwards a distance of welve feet in any structure located within thirty-five feet of


Guidelines -for Site Development Costs:
Based on a low average of 57. of building condition of the site.
1. Site Preparation
17. to 37. of building costs
2. Parking
350 sq. ft./car
3. Sidewalks and Terraces
17 to 77 of building
4. Storm Drainage
.57. to 2.57 of buildi
5. Landscaping
17. to 27 of building
Building Cost:
costs ng cost cost
cost,
due to the
Net Area/Efficiency Ratio = Gross Area Gross Area >; Unit Cost = Building Cost
Efficiency Ratio; a ratio of the net assigr^bJS are Net Assignable Areas: Include the sum of all functional spaced
required to serve the basic program.
Unassigned Areas: Consist of all other spaces in the building, specifically circulation areas, mechanical area, general toilets, janitor closets, unassigned storage, walls and partitions.
Efficiency and Quality:
There is a certain aspect of architectural quality which is inversely proportional to the "plan efficiency" of a building. Therefore, it is important to predict and assign a reasonable efficiency for a building which would contribute to its expected quali ty.
Common Range
Superb Grand Excel lent Moderate Economical Austere
50/507
55/457
60/407
65/357
67/337.
70/307.
Recommended Efficiency Ratios


Administration Dormi tory Library
55/45'/.
60/407.
65/357.
Note: A predominance of small rooms in the program requires higher percentages in circulation and partitions leading to a reasonable efficiency ratio o-f 55/457. in an administration building.
Components o-f Unassigned Space
E-f-ficiency Ratio
30. 07. 35. 07. 40. 07. 45. 07. 50. 07.
Circulation 16.07 20. 07. DO A. oL â–  07. 24.07. 25. 07.
Mechanical 5.07. 5.57. Walls, Partitions, Structure 7.5 i'/. 8.07. 10. 07.
7.07. 7.07. 8. 0 17. 9.57. 10.07.
Toilets (Public)
1.57. 1.57. 1.5 ;■/. r> ny 4. ■ V /» 2. 57.
Janitor Closets
f) r>v V â–  mtmmm / U 0.57. 0.57. 0.57. 1.07.
Unassigned Storage
0.37. 0. 57. 0.57. 1.07. 1.57.
Building Cost Estimate:
Efficiency Ratio 60/407. = 1.5
Price per sq. ft. $40 (recommended, good quali ty)
A. Building Cost 90,000 x 1.5 ($40/s.f.) = $5,400,000
B. Fixed Equip. (87. of A) = $432,000
C. Site Devel. (57. of A) = $270,000
D. Total Construe. (A+B+C) = $6,102,000
E. Site Acquisition (12,000 x $150/s.f.) = $1,875,000
F. Moveable Equip. (87. of A) = $432,000
6. Professional Fees (67. of D) = $324,000
H. Contingencies (107. of D) = $610,200
J. Admin. Costs (17. of D) = $61,000
K. Total Budget Rqrd. (D ?/ E thru J) = $9,404,200
Notes: Fixed Equipment-Includes all equipment items which may be installed before completion of the building and which are a part of the construction contract, such as lockers, food service equipment, fixed seating, fixed medical equipment, security equipment, stage equipment, etc.
Moveable Equipment- Includes all moveable equipment and furniture items, but does not include operational equipment (i.e. microscopes, library books, etc.
Fixed Equipment- Commercial Office Bldg.
Housing
Moveable Equipment- Office - Low 57.
.57. - 77. of cost.
7 - 107. of cost.
bui1di ng bui1di ng
47


Housing - Medium 10 -15'/.
Contingencies- Medium 107.
Cost of Parking per Unit (assume 350 /space)
Parking T^ge Surface
Structured (no sprink) Structured (sprink) Structured (sprink, mech)
i unit
*1,980 *4,950 *6,600 *9,900
Source: Problem Seeking An Architectural Programing Primer William Pena with William Caudill and John Focke Cahners Books International Boston, MA, 1977.


Design Checklist Community Concerns
Does the project respond to the opportunities of the place? Does it participate in the city?
Does it establish a natural passage between nodes of activity.
Is it responding to potential future needs?
Does it contribute to the community?
' Does it relate to existing context?
Does is fit into existing land use patterns?
Energy Concerns
Is alternative transportation encouraged?
Is passive solar design (daylighting and heating) maximized? Nei ghborhood
Is landscaping an integral part of the design?
Is the impact of automobile storage minimized?
Are the dwelling units related to the streets?
Are there public spaces (bus stops, pocket parks, walkthroughs, etc.) which would make the project a part of the larger neighborhood?
Seal e
Is the height sympathetic?
Is the bulk sympathetic?
Is the detailing sympathetic?
Are the openings sympathetic?
Are the materials sympathetic?
Is the landscaping sympathetic?
Shelter
Are the units clustered in such a way as to protect outdooor spaces form winter and storm winds?
Are entrances oriented away from storms?
Are units clustered in such a way as to catch the winter sun Are there provisions to shade outdoor spaces in the summer?
Self Image
Can each unit and related outdoor space be visually i denti f i ed?
Does each unit have some private outdoor space directly related to it?
Is there a sense of unity to the project?
Is there a sense of relatedness between the various uses?
Is an urban lifestyle projected by the design of the proj ect?
Does the project appear to be well-built with an air of lasting quality?
Orientation
Does the project have a sense of place within the nei ghborhood?


Are openings arranged to facilitate breezes for ventilation? Can windows be shaded when necessary?
Is the potential for views maximized?
F'ri vacy/Indi vi dual i ty- Is there an exchange in privacy for the amenities of city living?
Is territoriality enhanced through a clear sequence from public at private ?
Are sound barriers provided between units?
Are massing and landscaping used to preserve visual privacy from the street?
Security/Community
Are public and semi-public spaces used to foster a sense of community?
Are neighborhood amenities designed to provide interaction between the project and the neighborhood?
Can the street see in to the project?
Relationship to neighborhood
Are setbacks compatible with the neighborhood?
Are stylistic details compatible with the neighborhood?
Is massing compatible with the neighborhood?
Access
How are units connected to the street?
Does internal circulation connect to the street?
Is parking relatively convenient to the units?
Are transportaion alternatives (mass transit, bicycling, walking) encouraged through design?
Do fire vehicles have access?
Are open spaces accessable to housing'7
Economy
Are common walls maximized ?
Are non-specific spaces left-over spaces on the site minimized?
Are elevators avoided or kept to a minimum?
Are interior public spaces maximized?
Mai ntenance
Is trash disposal convenient and unobtrusive?
Credit: This design checklist is based on the list compiled by Jim Wright. Thanks Jim.
50


Design Schedule
Research and Preliminary Sketches From massing studies determine premiums
Design Due
Presentation Drawings and Model Massing and Development
12-26-83 - 1-29-84
May 8 4 weeks 10 weeks
Weeks 1
A.
B.
Final Site Analysis
Concept Sketches and Massing Studies 1. a. In a journal explore as many approaches as possible.
b. Refine three massing studies
c. Model massing studies C. Construct Site Model
diverse massing
Weeks 3
A.
B.
C.
D.
- 4
Analyse and commit to one massing scheme Draw axonometric of scheme of model massing scheme on site model
Determine structural bay system and organise parking, its relation to street and the building’s circ. systems.
Mass model
Weeks 5-6
A. Refine concepts; try for clarity in massing
B. Cut sections through massing
C. Design unit floor plans
D. Design retai1 floor plans
E. Design atrium and plasa plans Design Development
of
expressi on
Presentation - 24” Requi rements
x 36"

* n â– 
3.
4C 4.
* 5.
â– * 6.
7.
8.
-> 9.
Concept Derivation: Statement and Sketches Building Plan: at each level showing circulation system and the hierarchy of transition from public to private. Site Sections
Street and Courtyard Elevations
Elevation Study: Large scale to show matls. and colors Parking Plan
Snapshot Sketches: Showing the character of the space ' Model 1n~ bo1
5ite Plan: Showing immediate context 1" = &&0’ and relationship to context; also showing site analysis.
(JvywSrvu •etyntxr plm/
£. V>AL/Muy pLA*fJ /11'




Ihesis Ei.biiograghy
Books:
Aalto, Alvar. Sketches.. Edited by Goran Schilc't.
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1978.
Alexander, Christopher, et. al . A Pattern Language;.
New York, Ox-ford University Press, 1977.
Bo-fill, Pichardo. PrQ2§:i!§ CiteHistgire et
techngiggie;. Editions l’Equerre, 1981.
Brettel 1 , Richard R. Hi.stgr.i_c: Denver^ the Architects and the Architecture^ 1859-1893.. Historic Denve-, Inc., 1979.
Jones, William C., and Kenton Forrest. Denver^ A PlEtgral distgry.. Pruett Publishing Co., Boulder, Colo., 1973.
Murray, Peter. The Architecture of. the Il.aiian Renaissance;. Schocken Books, New York, N.Y., 196c.
FTesums, Guntis. Tgwnframes:. Environments for adaptive housing..
Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross. Inc. Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania, 1978.
UC^§n Design Case Studies.?. Awards Prggram.. RC Publications, Inc. Washington, D.C., 1977/79.
Ucfesn Design Case Studies^ Secgnd Awards Prggrarru RC
Publications, Inc. Washington, D.C., 1977.
Sherwood, Roger. Modern Housing Prgtgtyges
Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press, 1978.
Peri odi cals:
"The Arcade, Six Shops, Citicorp Center." Interior Design..
July 82, pgs. 180-183.
"Battery Park." American Institute gf. Architecture Journal^AI AJ». June 82, pgs. 30—31.
"Chistopher Street Housing." Progressive Arctitecture^P^A^ Jan. 81, pgs. 40-43.
"East River Development; Multi-Use Development." AR Aug. 80. pg. 45.
"Fanueil Hall Marketplace; After Five Years Critique; Boston Mass." AIAJ._ June 81, pgs. 24-31.
"Large Building Projects, Review." AIAJ..
52


June 82, dqe.
"Multi—Use, St. Paul , Minn. " Architectural. Revi.ewt March 81, pgs. 120-123,
New Market Glass Palace. 11 A-.Au
June 81, pgs. 42-49.
'Shops, Offices, Apartments in City Center Project." AIAJ. July 82, pgs.72-77.
"Shopping Center; Faneuil Hall; Boston Mass." Progressive Archi.tectura July 81, pgs. 100-106.
Shopping Center; South Street, Renovation and Construction." AIAJ, July 81, pgs. 100-106.
'Urban Development Projects Re-examined. " A_IAJ^ Nov. 82, pgs. 52-63.
Government Publications:
Policies for the Development of Downtown Denver and Adjacent Areasa. Denver Planning Office, Downtown Denver Inc., Central Area Development Committee., 19S3.
Housing Market Study for the Skyline Prgj_ect^ Denver Planning 0ffi ce, Den ver, Co1o. Jun e, 197S.
Denver Urban Design Sourcebook, Den ver P1 an ni n g Office, Denver
Colo. , 1 OC7 1. / O u
F'lann i_n g Toward the Future — Q20&rehenslye Pl_ an for Denver
Denver PIanni ng 0ffice, Denver, ... o l o« , M a y, 19 / S.
Denver Data Book, D.P.D., Denver, Colo., 1980.
53


Cone1 usi on
I have spent this semester intent on learning about the nature of the city and the place of housing in that order. What I ended up with was less limited than my original intentions. To treat a thesis as a purely acadenic exercise is to deny the true value of the process. I think that thoughts about the value of the academic process as an inquisitive tool rightfully introduces my formal thesis statement.
Beyond the act of studying the order of built form, is the personal response to study. I found that in a fundamental way, I have come away from this process surprised by the depth of my involvement and the relative ease with which design has intoxicated me. Approaching thesis as a "problem" removes the viewer from the vantage point of daring. This was an opportunity for me to confront the basic nature of idea testing. I found that the more involved I became in my problem, the more willing I was to let the solution lead where it would and invlove me even more. I’m convinced that the solutions are endless, that many solutions are good and that a good number can be made great. What is required is to be able to jump in and build your bridges where they’re needed. It is in the testing of very personal ideas about lifes values that one finds humane solutions to problems. Those solutions which move a viewer, are sloutions whose roots are fundamental and universally personal. Private yet commonplace. To find these solutions is demanding of oneself and for me, impossible without thoughtful criticism. Choose your critics carefully and carefully criticise what they give you. I’m very grateful to those persons who accompanied me in this inquiry.
Perhaps most importantly, I have completed my study with a changed sense of self reliance. For me, that is the test of education. It should impart one with the tools to act construct!vely and further ones own self reliance.
Just as the action of design has helped to strengthen my self reliance and impower me, so should architecture impower the individual user. Kenzo Tange defines human scale as that which is understandable but I think that beyond being understandable, architecture must empower rather than deny the user. To do so is to create an object of human scale. The way architecture empowers the individual is by understanding human needs and responding to them. That is the meat of my thesis. The mass of this building has responded at each scale of human concern - the individual, the group, and the community. At each scale the form recognizes itself as part of an order. The smallest component of that order is the individual, the largest is .the city. Doubtless, this solution is not perfect but because of it’s successes the next generation of design would be better. For me the conclusion, is the knowledge that the process now begins in earnest. That I sought to explore the buildings relation to man and to the city and found a way to strengthen mv own self awareness. That is the true success of my work.
a.


chen and associates, inc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SOIL t FOUNDATION ENGINEERING
96 SOUTH ZUNI STREET • DENVER, COLORADO *0223 • 303/744-7105
Subject:
COMCO Holdings, Ltd.,
Joint Venture with Westminster and
Country Properties, Limited
c/o C. W. Fentress
511 - 16th Street
Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Attention: Mr. Jim Bradburn
Gentlemen:
We have completed drilling and testing for the tw: test holes which were deepened In accordance with our letter dated OctoLar 30, 1981. Presented here are the revised foundation recommendations based on the results of the additional field and laboratory investigations.
Subsurface Conditions: Test Holes 2 and 3» located as shown on the attached Fig. 1, were redrllled to a bedrock penetration of L0 feet in order to Investigate the bearing capacity of the bedrock at these depths. Logs of Holes 2 and 3 are shown on the attached Fig. 2. Results of unconsolidated; undrained triaxial compression tests performed on samples obtained from the deeper penetrations are presented on the attached Figs. A through 6 and the attached Table I. Results o!‘ the triaxial tests and standard penetration tests indicate the bedrock is very hard at the depths sampled.
Novem.-.sr 18, 1981
Revise? Recommendation, Soil and Fotndation Investigation,
Old Min* Place, 16th Street and Market Lvreet, Denver, Colorado.
Job No. 2i,107B
OFFICES. COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO / GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLOVADO / CASPER, WYOMING


COMCO Holdings, Ltd. November 18, 1981 Page 2
Groundwater level measurements made when the holes were redrilled and five days after redrilling Indicate the groundwater level is at a depth of about 22 to 23 feet corresponding to elevations of about 7^ to 75 feet. These levels are about 2 feet below the levels measured when the holes were originally drilled.
Foundation Recommendations: The standard penetration tests indicate the bedrock strength increases below a bedrock penetration of about 20 feet. Based on our analyses, we recommend that piers be designed for a maximum end bearing pressure of 60,000 psf and a skin friction of 6,000 psf for penetrations up to 20 feet into the unweathered bedrock. Pier penetration exceeding 20 feet into the unweathered bedrock may be designed for a maximum end bearing pressure of 70,000 psf and a skin friction of 7,000 psf. All other recommendations presented in our original report under Job No. 22,107, dated May 6, 1981, should be followed.
Underdrain System; We understand a floor slab system which would allow groundwater to flow above the floor slabs during periods of high water level is being considered in lieu of the underdrain system recommended in our letter of October 30, 1981. The proposed system would consist of a floor slab with pressure relief holes through to the underslab gravel.
The highest groundwater level measured during our investigation was about 1 foot above the proposed floor slab elevation of 80. Conceptually, we believe the proposed floor slab system could perform properly with respect to its ability to relieve hydrostatic pressures on the floor slabs during periods of high groundwater level. However, the owner should be aware that the floor slab level appears to be within the range of normal groundwater fluctuation. This could result in floor slab inundation. In addition, relatively minor changes in the groundwater geology could result in long-term inundation of the floor slab If an underdrain system is not used. We recommend that multiple sumps be placed beneath the floor slab so that pumps can be installed in the sumps to remove the water in the event prolonged inundation does occur.
If you have further questions concerning these matters or if we can be of additional assistance, please call us.
Sincerely
CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC
Bruce E. Berends, P.E
cc: KKBNA
Attention: Mr. Bill O'Neal


Utility Contacts
Telephone:
Jack Hansen, Asst. Manager for Network Distribution
Mountain Bell
778-4806
Waste Waters
Don Stinson
Wastewater Management, City and County of Denver 629-1451 x252
Water:
Randy Christensen or Jerry Walden Water Board, City and County of Denver 623-2500
Cast
Pete McNeil
Public Service Co. of Colorado 571-8676
Electricity:
Steve Douglas
Public Service Co. of Colorado 571-8572 or 571-8829
Utility Easement Abandonment:
Bill Melton
Design Engineering of Public Works, City and County of Denver 575-2605
Fire Protection:
Eric Neff
Denver Fire Department 575-2540
Mass Transit:
Ron Clark
Regional Transportation District 759-1000 x497
xomtff ^PA 616 zi |5otu>tk& p&rv.


PROFILE OF THE DENVER HOME BUYER ALL LARGE CITY DENVER HOME BUYER HOME BUYERS Cherocteristic 1171 1*77 1171
Borrower Median Age 33 years 34 years 32 yeors
Household Site
1 or 2 64 3% 54 8% 52 8%
3 or more 35 7% 45.7% 47.2%
Marital Status
Single 43 R% 25 0% 26 1%
Married 56 1% 75 0% 73.R%
First-time Buyers 14 1% 34 0% 11.5%
Purchose Price
Less thon 130.000 4.1% It 4% 6 0%
130.000 to U9.*09 77.6% 49.3% 70 5%
ISC.000 10 179.999 39.7% 32 9% 40 7%
180.000 or more 28 6% 1 4% 33 3%
Median U3.S04 143.500 167.000
Age of Home New 34 7% 37,0% 26.6%
Existing 65.3% 43.0% 73 4%
25 or more veors 13 8% 17 1% 30.5%
Condominium Buyers 43 4% n/o 14.7%
Annuol Household Income
Less thon 515.000 6.7% 8 9% 4 6%
115.000 S24.999 79 7% 45 7% 77.7%
125.000 toSJi.m 32 1% 33.6% 31 4%
135.000 or more 31 5% 12 3% 36 8%
Medion 178.782 123.370 130.354
Importance ol Second Income* 66.4% 41.7% J7.»%
Total Monthly Housing Expense 1300 or less 5 1% 15.8% 3.3%
1301 to 1600 51 5% 78 8% it 9%
More thon 1600 43 4% 5 4% 54 8%
Medion Monthly Housing Expense
Total 1569 1406 1617
Mortgogc oovment 1449 1781 1452
Reoi estole tones 150 563 172
Utilities 155 150 175
Hcxord insuronce 115 112 111
Downpayment
10% or less 4% 23.3% 15.3%
70% or more r .i% 56 7% 59 7%
Medion n;.<9 17.751 115.532
Housing expense exceeding
25% of household Income AC.V% 25 0% 49.8%
ALL WESTERN HOME BUYERS It 7*
IS yeors
$4 IS 45.RS
25.5% 74 5S 14.RS
3 4S 16 IS 3R.7S 40.1% 173.000
78 8S
71.7S 25 7%
14.IS
5.1S 22 6S 79 4% 42. RS 132.106
15.OS
7 5S 33.OS 63.6%
1676
1533
165
160
118
13.RS S3 5% 11S.R27
14.7S
'Percentage at households with two odults ir which Income contributed by a second earner occounted tor los or more of total household Income. lourceiU.S. League ol Savings Associations.


f*,£,. 1*
uajor site, vacant for ten rs on Downtown Ithaca’s in shopping mall, is filled Werner Seligmann & As* iates with an abstract iposition that blends utifully with its older jhbors.
'er Ithaca fills a ten-year-old on The Commons, formerly •mm's Main Street. The 'er is carefully designed in s of scale and materials to fit other buildings on the mall; aced with reddish granite off-white and gray concrete jL iillllg LI 1C VOJLU
By the 1970s, Downtown Ithaca, like so many other small towns across America, was dying. And, like other towns, Ithaca decided to fight back. Two blocks on State (main) St. in the center of the business district were turned into a pedestrian mall. Over time, a number of the old 19th-Century buildings were restored, and toda\ life has begun to return to downtown. The most recent impetus for this change has been the opening of the new Center Ithaca designed by Werner Seligmann & Associates. The change, however, did not occur overnight, and there has been at least one major casualty, during the transformation, which has some relevance to the new center.
When State St. was turned into a mall, a number of buildings were demolished on its south side, where Tioga St. intersects. One of these was the major department store, Rothschild's, which moved into a new building (by Warner Burns Toane Sc Lunde) at the east end of the mall. The vacant site straddling Tioga St. was to be developed as the new^shopping center, but it was ten years be-
fore a developer could be found. The department store was able to struggle along during those years and was even able to hold out until after the opening of Center Ithaca but was eventually, and unfortunately recenth. forced to close.
For Seligmann, the obvious thing not to with such a major, centrally located site was to recreate a suburban mall downtown, as so many other cities have done. Instead, lit wanted to recreate the downtown—the main street—that had been taken away. The idej was not to make a blockbuster, but a true piece of infill architecture that related to the buildings around it in terms of scale and materials. It would contain lower-level shop ping, with offices and living above, which is an arrangement not uncommon to the o! let buildings on State St.
The facade of the new building is clad in reddish granite and concrete asbestos panels that approximate the tones, textures, and scale of surrounding structures. It is of a modular design, detailed in a rigorou' mathematically ordered progression which.


mm.ip
â– PH
iiss :

i|; j
MEL.

i—iiOTnrrs
COSTING OEPAHTMENT STORE
CENTER ITHACA
EWSTUG 1STH C&fTURY 0L
K
'kirtsvt I


hr & r % 1 e= = i a w E” :i ,i-s [■ 5r « m r K El BE -■* W -St
[â–  0 M | 9KYUOKT BELOW -sS
A . ->

i8P ciukj
i ■ * ‘.a ‘ ;a^L.a ‘a.j ■■ a Li
-1 I----1 I----1 :----! r-1 t-«-g=3.
TO RjOCT
along with the materials clearly delineates the levels of retail, office, and residential from each other. The rationalized, symmetrical, and classically proportioned design fits well with its neighbors, many of which are of Italianate, and therefore also of quite rationalized design.
Where the center faces Tioga St., which is now also a mall, an oversized and mirrored window at the office level has been designed to recognize that juncture. A galleria along the front and part of the rear of the ground floor approximates that of the new department store to the east; it is equipped with overhead doors that open the main market area directly to the mall or to the parking area In basement stairwell (top) and at the rear. When the doors are closed, the small courtyard (facing page, top main entrance, which is located where the en- right) concrete-asbestos paneh trance to the old department store was, is are imaginatively used to appear used to enter the 55,000 sq ft of retail space almost like stone facing. on the basement, ground, and mezzanine Second-floor offices look int< r levels. This space is divided into two areas: mam atrium (facingpage, tot one surrounding a large glass-enclosed left), and pipe rail stairs near tat atrium, the other with a small skylit courtyard frontfacing the mall (right) lead (inspired by Sangallo) where the court of the to individual shops. old department store used to be. While a mezzanine surrounds part of the eastern section, at that level in the western section, small shops at the front are entered by individual stairs from ground level. This gives each its own identity, Seligmann says, like those on Newberry St. in Boston.
None of the 25,000 sq ft of office space on the second floor has been rented yet, but on the third and fourth floors, almost all of the 62 apartments, which include two-bedroom units, one-bedroom two-story maisonettes, one-bedroom floor-through units and flats, and studio apartments, were taken immediately. And for good reason. While thev are


• > i
nail, thev are veil designed and nicely de-iled. and offer in extraordinary variety, ven their numbei.
ritique
he only major problem with the apartments mcerns the one bedroom maisonettes, hich are all at the south side of the building, id w hich were origi nally designed with spill stairs leading to the bedrooms. At the last unute (during construction! the city decided liral stairs were not allowed, and conven-onal ones were used instead. Although eiigmann made them as discreet as possible, icy still occupy too much space and overhelm the small living rooms.
There 2 re more serious problems down in ic retail > paces. This area was conceived by eiigmann as a large, basically unobstructed jvered n arketplace where goods would be >ld from kiosks and stalls. But as these were esigned, oy the associated architects Perry, ean. Slab 1 & Rogers of Boston, they almost impletely obliterate the idea of the open, ry marke; place of steel and glass that was esigned. \i'hat should have been light, deli-ite stalls are horsey obstructions made of larselv de ailed dark, heavy wood. One stall, hich is a curd shop, has been placed directly 1 front of the main staircase leading to the wer level thus cutting short a major axis id obscuring a main circulation route. Isewhere throughout the center, shopown-s have pasted up signs in their windows, 1 per mar >iet fashion, and in some cases have it gypsum board over glass partitions.
The onlv person who seems to have underood the narketplace is the grocer, who is at le back, acing the huge parking structure, e displays beautiful fruits and vegetables id other foods arranged simply on low turners: he opens the doors and sells plants id flowers outside, and in effect turns the ick of the market into what you imagine â– ligmanr must have envisioned for the hole place. [David Morton]
Data
Project: Crater Ithaca, I thru u
Ary.
Architects: Werner Setigmann S3 Associates, Cortland, NY; Pern, Dean, Stahl S3 Rogers, Inc., Associate Architects, Boston, Ma.
Client: Ithaca Center Assocou* Site: 34,000 sq jt in centra! business distnctf Program: 55,000 sqft of re'oil o’ d commercial space, 25,0011 ^ ft of office space, 62 housing units.
St> natural system: reinforced concrete foundation on spreac footings; steel frame with con. -posite concrete decking.
Major materials: steel stud<-t-terior wall framing, batt insulation, gypsum board sheathing, concrete-asbestos exterior and interior panels, vertical aluminum siding, C-strut granite support system, granite, overhead and upward acting doors (see Building materials, p. 126). Mechanical system: water source heat pump system with gas-fired modular boilers, hot water unit heaters for market area only.
Consultants: Perry, Dean, Stahl (3 Rogers, Inc., interiors (kiosks and signage); Bolton and Di-Martino, Inc., structural; BR+A Consulting Engineers. Inc., mechanical; H13 A of Nr* York, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists, soil General contractor: Streetr; Associates, Elmira, NY.
Cost: $6,007,000; $42.90 per sqft for building shell and rough flnish of apartments. Photography: Timothy Hursley
After construction was begun. the city decided spiral staircases/> duplexes fas shown in plans, and in axoncnetric above) were not allowed, so conventional stairs had to be used (left). Many apartmer 1.; have glass-enclosed balconies far left); others look into main atrium (facingpage, top) or onto roof terrace (not shown). Er, trance to apartment-is at rear oj Center, near city parking st- •*cture (facing pag. ■ bottom), w 1 te grocer displays vegetables c . dflowers outside.


a a.
;a In basement stairwell (low ic small courtyard (facmg pH i- right) concrete-asbestos pa* is are imaginatively used top :e almost like stone facmg. ~J te Second-floor offices lotkoP s: mam atrium (facmgpafff d left), and pipe rail stairs M d front facing the mall (rigU le to individual shops. >4


Belgium
A Set of Apartments Over Shops and a Triad of Town Houses
A recurring theme in the current proliferation of alternative architectural approaches to the established dogmas of modernism is the desire to re-establish and repair the built fabric of existing towns and cities.
In Europe, perhaps more so than in North America, the original centers of some of the older settlements have remained sufficiently intact to permit repair. Many others, however, have been transformed beyond recognition by random and ill-considered postwar developments.
Kapellen, a small Belgian town of 11,800 people north of Antwerp, attracts little of the attention of the larger European cities. Nor does it have the special urban qualities of the nearby historic towns of Bruges or Ghent. However, two recent projects in the town by architect Jo Crepain demonstrate appropriate tech-
niques for urban repair and town building.
On Engelselei, a street of two- and three-storv houses and shops close to the center of the town, Crepain has built two shops and five apartments, all within a three-story brick box. The apartments are on two levels over the shops and include four two bedroom units and a single bedroom studio apartment. The brick box has been hollowed out to create a classical U-shaped plan with an entrance court on the street. This court is covered by a curved translucent roof, connected to the street by a flight of stairs, and paved, lit, and planted as a small communal space wedged between the public domain of the street and the privacy of the houses. By interpreting the traditional pattern of living over the shop and slightly increasing the density of development on the site, the scheme not only reinforces the life on the street but also introduces differing scales of spaces. Crepain has translated these different scales emphatically in the building design.
He has created a symmetrical front to the street, with the windows of the resi-
dential units directly related totheinc tably large ground floor shop windows The first floor living rooms facing ontc the street are planned with generous s. circular window's, each of which fram« central free-standing fireplace. Anexte chimney flue divides the bay and artio lates the small square windows to the! floor bedrooms.
The design has created not only a for front to the street but literally a pair of faces “looking over" Engelselei. Thisf ercise in anthropomorphism is comply


Progressive Architecture 1:81
JAUUCI L Udl L JCJL /TlIIUCI MJJL1
B\v reemphasizing rather th ?jq disrupting, a repetitive ro:>f line becomes an imaginative way to expand splice in this Tudor Revival style apartment building.
Credits
Architects: Swaney Kerns Architects, Robert Barber Anderson, Washington, DC. Tom Kerns, principal/ director of design; Bob Anderson, principal/project designer; Levy Santos, job captain; Don Harris, Lynne Watkins, Abby Goodman, design team.
Consultants: E.K. Fox & Associates, Ltd., mechanical/ electrical; Funkhouser Associates, structural; Soils Testing Services, Stephen L. Tuttle, structural testing. Modelmaken Deborah Yin. Model photographer: Peter Harholdt.
Renderen Trebor Nosredna, Mickey Finn, Deborah Yin. Client' Ronald J. Cohen, Rockville, Md.
Project: Renovation and addition to an office building in Washington, DC.
Program: It was the client’s hope to expand the office area while preserving the simple elegance of the post-WW-1 Tudor Revival apartment building. Energy efficiency, access for handicapped, flexibility ir interior space, and a second access were a’so strong considerations.
Site: Between a French Enlightenment Revival and a modern office buildii in the business district of Washington, DC.
Solution: A S^-story addition, stepping back gradually, with balconies and sky . ghts at each level, maintains the scale and pretence of the existing facade while adding the needed space. To accentuate this stepped design, as well as to alleviate the problem 01 matching the existing brick, a gradation of ted tones was chosen, with the lighter brick ; each ascending level. The roof line desigt ecalls the mansard roof of its French Revival neighbor.
As dramatic is the curving wall which defines a special two-story indoor/out door area at the cellar and first-floor levels. The emerald glazed tiles, when lit, crea e an unusual and intriguing effect in an aria suitable for cafes, atriums, or a sculpture ga ien.
Individually controlled heat pi np units and through-wall air handling un .s in the rest of the building permit energy flexibility, and glass areas on the south allow sc me solar heating. The main lobby at the ellar level provides easy ramp access.
Construction methods and materf ds: Brick and concrete block walls; contrasting brick used to recreate the effect of lim : stone trim on exisung building; glazed tile.
Jury comments
Hartman: One point I’d like to make about this is that we’ve seen a number of unsuccessful and labored attempts to design < >’d buildings that fit into contextual neighborhoods. We’ve seen buildings that were j'. u downright silly from their excesses. Ai.d here’s one doing something that seems lil e a very useful thing to do, a very importan: thing to do, and at least it’s not silly or mre ated to what’s around it.
Frasca: Well, that entrance at tue ground level looks a little silly.
Stein: The counter note on that mi y be that after you’ve seen that one witticism cnee, will you still enjoy it as much when yr u see it every day as you pass by? Or does >t then become a little bit unnecessary, a bit too much?
150


itrcture 1:81


Cervin Robinson
Gaslight Square, top, by Henriquez and Todd is the centerpiece of Gas-town, the renewed waterfront neighl hood where Vancouver was born. A one point Canadian Pacific Railway wanted to redevelop the entire area and build highrises reached by platforms across its tracks. Only one wa: built, Granville Square by Francis Donaldson (above).
66 A,A JOU*NAL/DECEMBER 198i
A remarkable new spine and focal point ...
The province’s most recent contribution to Vancouver was * large and remarkably benign one, but it didn’t start out to be that way. The provincial government dec«ded in the ’70s to cos solidate some of its many offices scattered around the city ar.u combine them with a new courthouse. It engaged Arthur Crick* son as architect and asked him to design an office tower with tt* courthouse as its base in the middle of a park. It is said, perhaps L apocryphally, that the then premier of the province wanted the two to have a floor for every year of his life. He was then 55. v\ Midway through design, the premier and his conservative
regime were replaced by liberals and, as one observer put it.


At right, the ,'ull sweep with the old courthouse at left foreground, then the terraced-over office block, and finally, under its cocked canopy, the new courthouse. Above, the opposite view from the new courthouse. Below, under the canopy.
Sr , y ' mga wr ‘/mm
’*■ W \y \ i — jfw




1 - 2*3
•K;
More for the public than their employees. __________
Robson Sqm ‘e succeeds far better as urban design than its components dc us buildings. They have their moments, a notab one being the g eat space beneath the courtroom canopy (abov ieft) with its dn. r.iatic concrete bents. But even here the visitor wonders about k "ishing all of this structure on what is essentially a foyer for t ie courtrooms.
In fact, the rat o of foyer space to working space seems exces sive until one sees the section at left, showing just how much of the building area is “backstage” (secure, nonpublic spaces such


ms and judges’ chambers) and underground.
:ms very lavish, and, despite what Erickson likes canopy symbolizing the openness of the judicial has very little to do except imprint his “signa-ding.
building is considerably more wonderful to vork in. The office space is entirely under-ter or under plaza. T
of course, and some spaces look up to the undersides of pools and out to the backs of waterfalls.
Neither of the new buildings meets the streets with much grace. For all of the lightness of the canopy and pleasantness of landscape above, at ground level the pedestrian encounters mainly harsh concrete walls. (Robson Square thus shares with Robert Venturi’s Pennsylvania Avenu^la7^»^^|
Photographs by Ezra Stollcr © ESTO


monument to itself became people’s park.” None nts can precisely delineate who contributed what phosis, but the tower turned into a long low struc-uch open space as it is building. While it owes 5vin Roche’s Oakland, Calif., museum with its rraced roofs, there is nothing quite like it in
»the classical old courthouse that was originally :molition and is about to become the municipal iroject, called Robson Square, occupies three
with cafes and other amenities. The middle block contains the provincial offices, but not so you would notice at a casual glance, so covered over are they by pools, waterfalls, plazas, plantings and cascading stairs. This element then bridges the second cross street to the new courthouse, covered over by a huge angular canopy that is a filigree of glass and metal arching seven stories above ground. The muscular end wall of the courthouse is shown above, beneath the canopy.
This unique three-block spine has given downtown Vancouver
its largest open SDace and firc» rpoi r—>


blake st.


â–¡ â–¡
n â–¡
n n
n â–¡
â–¡ n
16th ST. ELEVATION SCALE OF DRAWINGS 1/16" = l’-0


0
0
n
â–¡
n
â–¡
â–¡
â–¡
â–¡
â–¡
â–¡

I
â–¡â–¡â–¡â–¡â–¡â–¡â–¡ â–¡[
â–¡
â–¡
â–¡
â–¡
â–¡
â–¡
if
â–¡ â–¡ â–¡
â–¡ â–¡ â–¡
â–¡ â–¡
â–¡
±t
rm
â–¡
â–¡

i
mi
ram
nnr,
â–¡â–¡â–¡
â–¡DO
non
nnn
BTlOfa

â–¡ n
â–¡
â–¡ â–¡
in
â–¡
â–¡
â–¡
â–¡
â–¡
o
il 1 il
1
MARKET ST. ELEVATION


SECTION A-A )


fc' V
SECTION B-B


atrium plan




0
D
3rd FLOOR PLAN


6th FLOOR PLAN’




-11th FLOOR PLAN








Full Text

PAGE 1

! I I I : I I I I The-:<::, is Boo 1::1 t."t Presented 1984 by Edwe:wd B ell

PAGE 2

i"!:i. nt j"''o 'I ' " : -J, :::t i,M, t::: .:: .: .. c: hi. t ec t: u: .::,.1 thesis presented to the College of DesiQn and Planning, University of Colorado at Denver i n fulfillment of the requirements for the of Mast2r cf Architecture. ---... ...... : ,.., ..... l ; . : ( .... , .. ....., --. --.-

PAGE 3

The thesis of Edward Bell is approved. University of.Colarado 3t Denver May, 1984

PAGE 4

I'd all like to thank my she's done and future. wife, now, fer for what lies in

PAGE 5

Directory IntrodLtcti on ......................... ,..................................... 1 F'roj ect Statement. . • • • . . • . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . 4 Objectives and Goals................................................. 5 Description and Location ...•..•.•.........•.•.................•. 7 Hi story of the City ....••...•.. . .'............................... 8 City Character ..................................................... 11 F'opLtl at ion Employment Education Economic Characteristics Recreation and Culture Medical/Professional Facilities Regional Climate ..•..•.••..•.•.•..••...••.......•..•....••.•.••• 13 Micro Climate Charts Solar Chart Geology ar•d Soils ................................................... 17 Site Data ......................................................... 19 Vacinity Map Site Plan Analysis Legal Description Ownership Valuation Neighborhood Description Property Description Narrative Site Analysis ••.••.••.••.•.•.....•.•.•....••••••••... 20 Site Anctlysis .................................................... 22 Land-Use Sun Path Traffic Sewer Water Views and Vacinity Zan i n g • . • .. . • . • . • • . • . • .. .. • • . • . .. . • . . . • .. • . . . • • . • • .. • • • . . • • .. . . • • . • • • • . . 2 7 General Regulations Zoning District Map Ordinance Review

PAGE 6

Bulk Regulations Floor Area Ratios U:;e s A l l •Jwe d F'r e m i Loading Requirements F'c:wkin•:J c::{Jr_ j e Re qLl i , ...... em en t :;" " :II • " :1 II • It II II :.. II II p !I :II II .... n u II' a "'
PAGE 7

Introduction This thesis 1s an investigation of the issues surrounding urban housing as an element in a mixed-use project. Living in the city is inherently desireable. The city posseses qualitites that make it an interesting place to dwell, and, in a contained area, the interaction of systems creates tension which is vital and dynamic yet exhausting. The density of the city creates its own problems, yet, in that collection of forces, an exuberance and vitality is generated. It is the d iverse nature of the city which produces interest and opportunity. It makes the city a unique dwelling place. In reaction to natural forces, the city forms a multis caled organism. It can be viewed on at least three scales: 1. hum a n scale 2 . the n eighborhood 3. the city Ultimately, human scale is the most important of the because that is how we see the city and determine its value. I think it can b e shown that b y recognizing the city on these three levels a more humane urban environment can be designed. Each element in the overall comp o sition can be measured against its ability to interact on the human scale. Assuming this, it would then be possible to measure the success of the city as a whole, like the city of Prague which is mentioned as a city unsurp assed as an urban ent ity because on every streets, buildings, blocks and plazas, the city is it serves its inhabitants. At the first level, human are issues about home, safety, and the relation to the street. Some implication s of these bas1c needs in a mixed-use project are: how is the residence combined with the various public elements which make up a mixed-use project? and h ow is privacy provided while maintai,ing a close relation w ith the city? A ccess to the c ity with the option to withdraw to private or personal space easily , is a measure of the success OT the city at the human scale. My project will respond to the c ity on a human scale by recognizing the limit of participation with the city and the human need for solitude, personal safety and the image of home. Beyond the issue of intimate o r human s cale, is the question of how a building responds to the district. Wha t l s the natural relationship between historical structures and n ew buildings? Sensativit y t o historic contex t and the adaptiv e reinterpretation o f those for ms is possible and desirable. My project will recog nize the importance of its historical contex t and show that by its presence it has helpe d to define and benefit the area. while recognizing the sense of place and responding to the neighborhood, the design must image itself as a basic element n the larger context o f the community and the city. It is in recognition of the hous e as the basic element in the city that this project has been prcoosed. The Denver Central Business District currently lacks a housing base. That situation has resulted in an urban core which is usually vacant after work hours leaving the impression of the city as a dead and inhospitable place. The city has responded with programs to p rovide greater amenities i n the area and t o encourage increased housing.

PAGE 8

In the B-7 district, which is and smal l business operations, The cities growth has, for the now composed largely of a sense of neighborhood most part, ignored this warehouses is absent. area since 1893 and the decline of the railroad has meant the demise of the once great hotels foLnd here. More recently, the area has exper ienced an increase in interest and economi c activ ity. Some hous ing projects have been built but they've resulted in housing which i s insensitive and dimensionally inhumane. In this project I accept the premise that housing is an essential ingrediant in the health of the city. I believe that the benefits of urban housing are considerable. The city has expressed the need. I propose a potential solution. My response will address the city on three design levels. It will demonstrate the possibility for design to engender vital i t y and a quality of lif e on the human level, within the context of the neighborhood, the and the city.

PAGE 9

FORWARD Project Statement: This project is an investigation of urban housing issues. Primary to the issue of urban housing in the "80"s is the relationship of housing to the vitality of the urban core. Urban analysists have begun to recognize the value of perminant residents in the core city as a way of stabilizing decay, promoting the image of the city, avoiding the 9 to 5 syndrome whereby the urban core is vacated from evening to the next morning, the loss of tax bases due to the flight to the suburbs, etc. The project intent is to provide an urban design solution which recognizes the inherent desireability of housing in the city and effectively utilizes the unique opportunities of urban dwelling.

PAGE 10

Objectives and goals My objective is to design an urban building which includes housing, retail, and office space. It is my goal to realize the potentials of this particular site in such a way that the historic context is preserved and enhanced, the relationshi p to the 1 6 t h St. Mall is exploited, the opportunity for local employment and entertainment is promoted. By doing so, I hope to establish an architype of urban housing which is a more desireable and reasonable alternative to other types of city housing. 5

PAGE 11

''I don't believe that making beautiful buildings means making "good Looking ' buildings ... I do not believe that beauty can be deliberately created. Beauty evolves out of a Will TO BE that may have its first expression in the archaic. Compare Paestum and the Parthenon. Archaic Paestum is the beginning ... Paestu m inspired the Parthenon. The Parthenon is considered more but the Paestum is still more beautiful to me. It presents a beginning within which is contained all the wonder that may follow in its wake.''
PAGE 12

and Location The site is located on 16th Street between and Blake The is within the Lower Downtown and the zoning is F.A.R."s are 2:1 but with can be up to 4:1. The Lower Downtown to as is on the northwest by the railyards at the edge of the Central Platte Valley. This is the the city of Denver was originally founded. The district is bordered on the southeast by the Skyline Urban Renewal Project by Speer Cherry Creek, and the Auraria Campus on the southwest On the northeast border of the district, marked by 20th is an area earmarked for and improvement a s a residential zane. The site is directly across from the recently completed RTD shuttle located at the terminous of 16th Street Mall. Th e has been marked recently by a series of building programs. Amoung the projects recently completed
PAGE 13

History of the City Originally settled at the confluence of the South Platte River and Cherry the two towns of Auraria and Denver merged into one, forming the city of Denver on November 1858. Colorado became a state in 1876, and the capitol was established in Denver. Economically the city functioned as a regional marketplace. The gold rush of 1849 swept theough the area leaving it virtually untouched. By 1875 minerals had been discovered in the mountains west of Denver creating a second rush for gold and launcing a period of robust development from 1875 to 1892. Early development was almost entirely out of wood and massiv e fires swept the city at the end of the 19th destroying major portions of the city. The silver crash in 1893 initiated the end of an era and signaled a condition which has become characteristic of this city, cycles of boom and bust. As the area recovered from the crash it was led into a period of great civic pride and building which resulted in many of the major civic buildings and the park systems existing in the city today. The push to build Denver into the Queen City of the Plains was orchestrated by then Mayor Speer who was inspired by the City Beautiful movement which resulted from the Columbian Exposition of 1893. Examples of the work completed at this time are the Civic Center, including the City and County the Greek Theatre and Voorhees Memorial, Union Station, and the pavillions in City Park and Cheeseman Park. The parkway system was initiated and the Zoological Gardens and Natural History Museums were founded. At the time of the great Depression o f the 1930's major projects were concluded and the period was marked by austerity. Building codes were and zoning was made permissive to encourage new construction. Man y homes were converted to rooming houses and single-family residences were made into apartment complexes. After World War II, when the soldiers returned home, Denver experienced another boom period of rapid housing construction and outward expansion. The Zoning qrdinance originally adopted in 1926 was significantly relaxed to attract more intensive development in the central city residential areas, such as Capitol Hill and North Capitol and to intensify commercial development in the Central Business District. In the years following W.W. II the city began annexing areas on its edges, the gridiron street pattern was replicated on the landscape and the outlying areas came in to competition with the mother city. Shopping centers had taken hold and were producing fierce competition to the retail areas in the Central Business District. Retail establishments were closing, and comething needed to be done to shore up Downtown and its employment oppor tunities and tax base. Ambitious urban renewal programs were including Auraria, Avondale, to the northwest of Downtown, and to prepare land for housing and commercial redevelopment. Two of the most significant changes that occurred in the decade of the 1970's were in demographic characteristics and residential ownership patterns. Family sizes became small, with

PAGE 14

more singles, young and old, living together. Minority proportions of the population grew rapidly, but the average household size declined substantially. The advantages of condominium ownership under federal tax laws persuaded many to convert apartments to condominiums, and the market demand for such units boomed. From 1970-1975, 4,500,000 square feet of new construction occured in the downtown area on a base of 23,422,400 square feet of floor space in 1970, a 16.2% increase. From 1975-1980, the rate of increase surged to over 20%, leading two a total of almost 35,000,000 square feet of downtown by 1980, not counting parking structures. The focus of the 1980"s is the enormous office construction downtown, some construction in the concentric rings around down town, the concentration of new development on the periphery of the city in the far southwest, northeast, and southeast portions of the City. "Leap Frog" and low-density sprawl development on the outside edges of the urban area is wasteful of public resources. It requires construction of new public facilities and utilities, while existing ones in the already developed areas go underutilized. For example, Denver•s public schools are operating at 60% of design capacity, while suburban districts are raising taxes to build schools. This type of regional imbalance draws funds away from use in enhancing the quality of life. History of the Site In 1860, spurred by the gold rush, the brothers Austin and Milton Clark from Pennsylvania joined forces wiht E.H. Gruber & Company. They erected a bank and mint building at 1410 16th Street, the corner of 16th and Market, at a cost of $5,000. The company opened its doors on July 20, 1860, purchasing gold dust form the miners and minting $5 and $10 gold coins. performance of the company earned it tha reputation of being the best financial organization of the pioneer days in Denver. The two-story structure was so luxuriously furnished that it emerged as one of the show places of Denver, and as an example of Denver•s "prosperity and modernity." In April 1862 an Act of Congress prohibited the private minting of coins and extablished a Denver Mint. A year later the U.S. Government acquired the Clark Gruber & Company premises for the sum of $25,000, and established Denver•s first U.S. Mint. The original building was remodeled and an addition made to it. In 1864 Gruber withdrew form the company which had retained banking facilities on the premises, and the Clark brothers and four other Denverites founded the First National Bank, which acquired the bank facilities in May 1865. A new mint was proposed at a new location, and in 1895 the U.S. Mint ceased operations at 1410 16th Street. Before closing its doors, some $30,000 worth of gold dust was recovered from the floors in the final sweep-up. In 1906 the property was sold to Charles Boettcher, and used for the storage of onions and potatoes until 1907 when the building was torn down. 9

PAGE 15

Boettcher built a new two-story 22,500 square foot brick and concrete building on the site in 1907 at a cost of $25,000. The bui 1 ding known as the "l"li nt Block" compt-i sed ground f 1 oor retai 1 units and offices above, standing at 1410 16th Street until August, 1981. Reprint from press release. 10

PAGE 16

City Character Population: Population trends and figures for the greater metropolitan area vary considerably from Denver's. The 1980 U.S. census lists Denver's population at 492,365. Comparing that fig ure to the 1970 population figure of 514,678, it is seen that the population of Denver has dropped significantly, the annual percentage change was -.04. On the other hand, the population o f the greater metropolitan area, in 1980 was 1,618,461, an increase when compared to the 1970 census figure. In the overall forecast for metropolitan population, for the year 2000, it is anticipated that the population will be over 2.5 million. Denver, on the other hand, is expected to remain rela tively constant at approximately 550,000 persons, and that figure includes some small positive growth approximations for the city of Denver after the year 1980. Employment: The major sources of employment income in the Denver area are services, goverment and trade. In these sectors, trade in wholesale and retail accounted for the greatest number of jobs in 1980. Jobs in the service sector and government, including military, accounted for the second and third greatest sources of jobs in 1980. According to DRCOG forecasts, b y the year 2000 the relationship of job ratios in each of these sectors will remain similar, with employment in trade accounting for over 357,000 jobs. The U.S. Department of Commerce forecasts differ from DRCOG estimates listing services as the largest employment sector supplying over 339,000 jobs while the trade sector is expected to provide approximately 324,000 jobs by the year 2000. Comparing the DRCOG estimate for employment in the year 2000, the metropolitan area will provide approximately 623,000 jobs and of those jobs, 177,000 will be available in the CBD. Education: In the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
PAGE 17

popular facility in the city is the Natural History with a record for visitors in 1982. The Public Library system is ranked third in popularity with 750,000 the Art Museum is fourth with visitors and the least most popularfacility is the Botanic Gardens, with visitors in 1982. The city of Denver includes approximately 111 small parks, 73 large 37 recreation centers usually associated with a large 10 community and 15 senior centers. The municipal park and recreation systems include 7 golf 22 swimming 143 tennis 13 lighted playing 13,6000 acres of park area and 78 miles of hike-bike trails. Medical/Professional Facilities: The city has within its limits 12 major hospitals, 9 health stations and center. There are 146 public 11 of which are senior high and not included in these figures are 3 special education facilities.

PAGE 18

Regional Climate Although Denver does experience seasonal the city enjoys temperate climate most o f the year. The annual mean tempera ture is 52 degrees Fahrenheit, with a summer mid-day average of 85.6 degrees and a January average high temperature of 42.6 degrees. Temperatures i n the winter are below freezing for a majority of the nights and occasionally fall b e l ow 0 . In the temperatures are generally in the 70-90 range, occasionally exceeding 100. Daily and seasonal temperature variations and seasonal temperature variations and extremes do require special attention in design plans and construction techneques and materials. Precipitation. Little moisture is derived from precipitation in Denver. The average annual rainfall is 12.9 inches. Average annual snowfall in Denver is 55.4 inches, but it is normally light and melts quickly in the intense sunlight. The area is classified as a semi-arid climate and the depth to groundwater requires that non-indigenous plants be watered. Al l of Denver' s municipal water supply is transported to the city from mountain reservoirs. Therefore, landscape design should consider wate r consumption and conservation opportunities. Wind. Although wind is normally calm to light, occasionally it can reach high levels. Chinook winds from the west in a downslope configuration can have a warming effect in winter. Denver requires wind analysis only its tallest buildings prior to issuing of building permits. Air Quality. Because of Denver's location in a valley immediately east of t h e high mountains, the continental air mass moves over the region at a high level, leaving a pocket of air occasionally trapped over Denver. When that air contains heavy concentrations of pollutants and becomes trapped, d u e to temperature inversions, the result can be unpleasant and possibly dangerous. Efforts to alleviate or control the air quality in Denver have begun to show marked progress and development of other sources of pollution, such as polluting industries is discouraged. At the present time the chief source of pollution is automobiles. Sunlight. Denver averages over 300 clear days a year and consequently solar design considerations are a strong possibility in this city and surrounding areas. 13

PAGE 19

Microclimate Charts Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Degree Days Heating 1088 902 869 e.-,c::-.. 1""'\C""":" ..::......J • .,;• 80 based on Cooling (l 0 0 0 0 110 I 1:" O....J deg. F. July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Heating 0 (l 1:20 408 768 1004 Cooling 248 208 54 5 (l 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Precipitation Normal .61 .67 1. 21 1. 93 2.64 1. 93 in inches 1. 44 1. 66 2.89 4. 17 7.31 4.69 water eq. Min .01 .01 . 13 • <)3 .06 . 10 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Normal 1. 78 1. 29 1. 13 1. 13 .76 .43 Ma:: 6.41 4.47 4.67 4. 17 2.97 2.84 Min . 17 .06 T .05 .01 • <)3 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Snow/ice Ma: : 23.7 18.3 29.2 28.3 13.6 ..,.. . -' July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec o. 21.3 31.2 39. 1 39. 1 30.8 Time Jan Feb Mc;.r Apr May June Relative 05 63 66 67 68 70 71 Humidity i 1 45 43 41 38 38 36 F'ct. 17 48 42 40 ..,.1:" . .,; . .._) 36 36 23 63 64 63 59 60 6 0 Time .July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 05 70 69 69 64 68 65 11 36 36 30 35 44 44 17 7C" 70::0 ..,.C" ..,..C" 49 50 . ..;a...J . .,; . .._) . .,; . .._) . ..:1 ,_) 57 58 60 58 6 6 64 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Wind Mean Speed 9 .• .t 9.3 10. 10.4 9.6 9. 1 m.p.h. July ALl•;} Sept Oct Nov Dec 8.5 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.7 9 . 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Fct. of 72 71 70 67 65 71 Sunshine July Sept Oc t Nov Dec 71 72 75 I -' 65 68 ....

PAGE 20

Jan Feb lvlar-Apr-May June Avg. Daily Solar225 325 425 C"'I""H:"" 575 675 Radiation: Langley's/day July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 6.-,c:;-..:.:....; 575 475 375 275 225 Jan Feb 1'1ar-Apr-May June Mean Sky Cover-C" C" .!;, ' 1 6' 1 6,2 3 1 tenths, sunr-ise to sunset July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Mean Sky Cover4,9 4,9 4,3 4,4 5,4 r:::" ..,.. ....J!I -..: t(:!nths, sunr-ise to sunset Jan Feb 1'1ar-Apr-May June Temper-atur-es F deg. Ma:-: 42.6 45.3 51.3 60.2 69.5 80.6 Min 17.4 2<). 3 26. 1 34.8 43.9 52.7 Mean 30. 1 32.8 38.7 47.5 56.7 66.7 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Ma!: 86.5 85 76. •=J 65.5 52.6 44.5 Min 58.8 57.6 48.5 37.6 26.6 19.6 Mean 72.7 71.3 62.7 51.6 39.6 32.3

PAGE 21

SOLAR CHART-DE VER LONG 1041W ELEVATION 5280 FT. 0 & .. ,..

PAGE 22

Geology and Soil s On Site. The soil on site is composed of clayey sand to sandy is slightly gravelly, or fine to coarse grained sand to a depth of approximately 10". Below the sandy layer is a layer of gravel which varies in depth but is approximately 18" deep. A layer of sand, medium dense to dense, moist to with a texture which runs from fine to coarse with occasional cobbles, lies below the gravel bed. In parts there is a layer of sand slightly clayey to clayey, of varying texture which is very hard and moist. Below these layers, at adepth of approxima tely 30" from the serface is the claystone bedrock. The bedrock is slightly sandy, very hard, medium moist, and blue gray in appearance. Ground water is approximately 20' below the surface. Refer to soil engineer's report. 17

PAGE 23

' '--. ! .,., . . • •. ,'. . . I . Reg i onal a ctivity centers and Denver CBO .. REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTERS AND DENVER CBD , ' . . . \.. 1\, : '. < ; ! ' . , : " . / 18

PAGE 24

Site Data Site Plan Analysis: A. Legal Description-Lot 29 to 42 E. Denver. inc. blk B. Property addresses-1402-1418 16th Street is the same as 1551-1561 Market Street. C. Ownership: 1402-1418 16th Street Compwest Colo. Assoc . Wagstaff, Inc. 410 17th St. Suite 2330 Denver, Co. 80202 % Gooch and D. Valuation: 1402-1428 16th St.; assessed $24,360 Actual value-approximately $150.00/sq. ft. or $150.00 x 12,000sq.ft. = $1,875,000 Neighborhood Description: The neighborhood surrounding the site is uneven in character. It is in a historic district, referred to as the Lower Downtown. The neighborhood was composed largely of warehouse facilities until the building boom of the 70' s at which time the area was marked by a number of renovation projects and new office development. The surrounding buildings are largely two and three story brick or stone structures. A number of new office projects were allowed to be built that were inconsistant with the existing texture and mass and as a result of the B-7 zone was inacted to more closely control the quality of the neighborhood. Property Description: The site is clear land. The site lies on the N.E. end of block 15, Map no. 2331-15 and fronts 16th St. The surface area is approximately 12,000sq. ft. Lot 1402-1418 was the site for the first Denver mint, established in 1862, on the site of the Clark Gruber & Co. bank and mint. The land was last cleared in 1981, when the Mint Block, built by Charles Boettcher in 1906, was torn down. 19

PAGE 25

Narrative Site Analysis My site is at the end of the 16 St. Mall and located within the edge of the historic perservation zone designated B-7. The area i s composed of the last major collection of buildings left from the turn of the century. To the northeast is the Central Business District. Below and to the southwest is the Cherry which flows into the Platte River abou t 400" down stream. Beyond the Cherry which runs approximately north and south and t o Speer is the Auraria campus. The campus is located on the site of the old town of one of the original settlements. The town of Auraria was razed in the middle sixties as part of the Denver Urban Renewal effort. Most of that original town is gone except for a small amount of retail and warehouse functions on Wazee St. The historic Tivoli were my grandmother attended plays as a has been saved and is now under reconstruction. The site is well outside the flood plain of the Cherry Creek since the creek has been channelized along most of its course through the city . T o the northwest of the site is the historic train Union Terminal. The train statio n had been designated as the site for the proposed Convention the plans for which have been discontinued for the time but are expected to be revived again. To the north beyond Union Station, i s the Central Platte Valley. The origina l settelment of Denver was built in the C.P.V. but was abandoned for higher ground in the direction of the existing city after the severe f laod of 1863. The bank s of the Platte are currently being developed into a system of parks called the Greenway Project. The gem of that development is the par k at the ccinfluence of the Cherry Creek and the Platte River, called Confluence Park. Pedestl-ian walkways and bik e paths along the banks of the Cherry Creek, just two blocks from the discussed site, lead to Confluence Park and the Greenway system of parks. The Valley is transversed b y several roads connected t o the interstate highway and the n eighborhood areas, to the west and northwest. The major thoroughfares from the Valley which pass within a short distance of the site Speer Blvd., which! carries 3 8,000 vehicles on an average and 16th which carries 7,300 vehicles on an average day. 15th and 16th Streets border the.site block on the southwest and northwest edges respectively. In the area to the northwest of the site is the remainder of the of the B-7 zone. The B-7 zoning continues u p to 2 3rd St. beyond which i s the C urtis Park n eighborhood area. This area, which is also known as Lower Downtown, was rezoned inorder to preserve and improv e the older structures that are architectually and/or historically significant. The zoning uses allow light general wholesale services, offices and high density residential uses. The floor area ratio of the zone is 2:1 but with premiums can go t o 4 times the site area. Uses are as varied as zoning allows. Man y of those original buildings are built of red brick. Cut stone was also used but is not commom i n this particular area. Generally, the scale is uneven due to demolition and infill. The 20

PAGE 26

area is dotted with parking lots. The older buildings are frequently two, three or story structures. Those historic structures are dimensionally and rhythmically varied. Many of them fill double lots but express the twenty-five lot line structurally . Often the street edge is marked with large picture windows and open bays. Older structures are almost always capped with cornices and show decorative detail. Newer structures are constructed more simply and lack decorative details even though alluding to their historic context in their choice of buiding materials. The most noticable inconsistency between the old and new is. scale. Many new buildings are twice the size of older structures. The result is a course texture which imposes on the older buildings and I think, defeats the spirit of the zone.

PAGE 27

(I) H Q) Q) P. (I) St. ' -Larimer St. ..&:I +l. \0 .. I " 1/ (I) .Q +l r:-... . . •• r.:: . ' -' . \ -Scale M l--.l \CY 0 50 I 200 400

PAGE 28

ct:J I scale _ ___ I l 0 50 200 -400

PAGE 30

0 []Ij I f--. Blake St. I J I I I • f:?Pe::>,

PAGE 31

illl ' fm [t][ I tll1JJn Larimer St. : .q r-0[[1]1D . lll 1 [tiJ U R I HTil u Dh IM l ! I \IJIW f_ I \ Scale ....... 1 0 50 200 400

PAGE 32

the zone lot frqnt line which is part of the long dimension of 0 any block. Floor ::<.reas added shall Area Premiums. In addition to the basic permitted under section 59-380(b) (1), throLtgh the premiums 1 i sted bel ow. In the additional floor exceed two times maximum gross floor floor area may be no case, the zone lot and the total floor area which is the supplementary maximum gross floor area shall not exceed four times the zone lot area. Premiums: .Premium for unenclosed arcade. Three square feet of floor area for arcade which has a depth of twelve feet or or a height equal to or greater than the depth. 25% of the periphery shall be retail, business or entertainment. Premium for enclosed arcade. Two square feet of floor space for each square foot of enclosed arcade, provided 1. Two entrances to the street or plaza. 2. Minimum width of each entrance is 10 feet. 3. Minimum width between all bounding walls is 10 feet. 4. Average minimum height is 10 feet. Premium for atrium. Three square feet of floor area for each square foot of atrium. Premium for low level light area. Three square feet of floor area for each square foot of low level light area, provided: 1. It is located within fifteen feet of the ft-ont line of zone with 25% on its perimeter open to the street. 2. It is located between twenty and sixty feet above the street level. 3. It is located above a structure the front wall of which is located along the front line of the zone lot. Premium for underground parking. 0.75 square feet of floor area from each square foot of underground parking. Parking surface a mimimum of 5 feet below street level. Premium for enclosed plaz.a. Si>: feet of floor arE?Afor each square foot of enclosed plaza up to five percent of the zone lot area, provided: 1. At least with a width of at least 15 feet and not more then located on the street. 2. Minimum depth of fifteen feet. 3. Contains extensive landscaping, fountains. 4 Is paved and has seating. Premium for Residential. One square foot of floor area for each square foot of floor area maintained and operated as 28

PAGE 33

dwellings. Off Street Loading Requirements: Location. On the same zone lot as the structure. Authorization may be granted for on-street loading in some circumstances. Amount of space required. The following amounts of offstreet loading space shall be provided, plus and area or means adequate for maneuvering, ingress and egress. Each loading space shall be at least ten feet wide, twenty-six feet long and fourteen feet high. (260 sq. ft.> Offices, hotels, and multi-family dwellings: Sq. Ft. of Floor Area Up to 25,000 25,001 to 250,000 Sale at retail: Sq. Ft. of Floor Area Up to 15,000 15,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 200,000 Off Street Parking Required No. of Spaces None Two Required No. of Spaces None One Two At least the following amounts of off-street parking space shall be provided. Refer to chart which follows. The width of parking structure for small cars shall be at least eight and one-half feet and for large cars shall be at least nine feet. Parking Class One, Dwellings. There shall be one and onehalf off-street parking spaces provided for each dwelling unit in a multiple-unit Parking Class Four, Retail Uses by Right. There shall be one parking space provided for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area contained in any structure containing a use by right. Parking Class Nine, Office. There shall be one off-street parking space provided for each five hundred square feet of gross floor area contained in any structure. 29

PAGE 34

BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS Applicable Building Code Ordinance: Denver Building 1982 Edition Fire Zone Designation: 2 Occupancy Classification: Townhouses: H-3 Office/retail: F-2 n:ference: Sec. 160 1 (a) Table 5-A Open/Closed Parking Structure: G-3 Restaurant: F-1 (l 1'. Construction Type :...It e'lC: ' ol"t1"•r-'tb 1Wi1111""-T Sec. 505(b) H-3: 4-hour, unlimited F-2: II, 4-hour, sq. ft. G-3: II, 4-hour, sq. ft. F-1: II, 18,000 sq. ft. Occupancy Seperation Requirements: 1-Hour except between G-3 and H-3, 2-hours Exterior Bearing Wall Fire Ratings Group H-3, Type II Group F-2, Type II Group Type II Group F-1, Type II Exterior Wall Openings Limitations: Sec. 505 Table 5-C Sec. 1701 Table 5-B Table 17-A Sec. 1903 (a) 2 H-3. F-1. F-2. 20" setback Table 17-C not. permited less@an Sec. 1903(A) < B > or center line of alley.) Exterior Walls and Openings: 1. Nonbearing walls fronting on streets or yards having a width of at least 40 • noncombusti b 1 e material 2. Groups F,G,and , H occupancies E xterior bearing walls may be 2 hr. fire-resistive where openings . o;; rJW;:> OPI!NI NUJ::? PO o::c.v""' , .,. ' , Interior Bearing Walls: 2 hr. fire rating Structural Frame Fire Rating: 2 hr. Table 17-A Perminant Partition Fire Rating: 1 hr. Table 17-A Floo r Fire Rating: 1 hr. Table 17-A Roof Fire Rating: 1 hr. Table17-A

PAGE 35

Maximum Floor Area Per Building: Area Increases Seperation on 3 sides Where public or yards more than 20 feet in width extend along and adjoin 3 sides, the floor area may be increase 2.5% for each foot by which the minimum width e xceeds 20", but not more than 100%. Total area for over one story Total Increases F-'7 allowable = 30,000 N "":! = 90,000 sq. ft. .... F-1, allowable = "":! = sq. ft. allowable = unlimited G-3, allowable = 45,000 N "":! = 135,000 Mixed Occupancy Ratio: E=l + 1 allow. F-3 allow. H-3 Limit per F-1: F-"< -'. H-3: G-'"":!' -. Story: one story 30,000 x 1.58 = 47,400/floor Ltnlimited 45,000 x 1.58 = 71,100/floor Maximum Height: 75" sq. F-1: A t street level or at top of building F-2: b stories H-3: 3 stories G-3: b stories Occupant Load: H-3: 300 /occupant; assume 1000 /unit: yields 4 occupants/unit ft. F:etai 1 ( •;JrOLtnd f 1 oor > : 30 I occupant; assume 900 /store; yields 30 occupants/store Office: 100 /occupant; assume 1000 /office; yields 10 occupants/office Parking: 300 /occupant; assume 1b,OOO parking structure; yields 54 occupants Restaurant: 15 /occupant; assume 1000 restaurant, yields b6 occupants Number of Exits Required: when occ. greater than 10 H-3: 1/unit Retail: 1/store Office: 1/office Parking: 2 Restaurant: 2 or more when ace. more than 50 sec. 506 (b) 2 1. 00 3.00 Table 33-A Sec. 3302 Table 33-A 31

PAGE 36

Number of Stairs Required: H-3: if necessary Retail: at street level Office: 2 if over 1000 on second fl. Mezzanines: 2 if over 2000 or 60' in one Parking: 2 Restaurant: Door Width Requirements: 3' if exit Stair Width Requirements: Public: 36" 44" if ace. load greater than 50. Private: 30" min. (occupant load of 10 or less) Minimum Plumbing Facilities: Occupant load of less than 100 W. C.: 1 1 femc. .le. Urina.l: 1 Lavs.: 1 male, 1 female Stairway Landing Requirements: Max imum vertical distance between landings: Minimum dimension same as width of stair. Public Corridor Width Requirements: 44" Min. Travel Distance Limits: Dead Door H -3: Max. 50' within unit Ma:-:. 1 f 1 i ght of stairs F-2: Ma;.:. l50' (200 if sprinkled) F-1: G-3: Max. 200' in open parking garage End Corridor Limits: 201 Swing Requirements: In direction of e:-:i t when serving an OCCLtpant load of 30 or more. Stair Rail Requirements: Handrails on at least one both if open on both sides Sec. 3302(a) Sec. 3303 (d) Sec. 3305 Tab 1 e 5-E-1 Table 5-F Sec. 3305(g) Sec. 3305 (b) Sec. 3320 (c) Sec. 3321 3 (b) E xtend rail minimum 6 beyond top and bottom of risers and within dwelling unit, no rails needed. 3':

PAGE 37

Balcony Rail Requirements: Reqd. if 15" above grade Min. 42" high Ma::. 9" clear space between intermediate rails. Tempered laminated safety glass or gratings may be substituted. Riser/Tread Limits: J=;:i ser mc:n: . 7. 5" RLtn min. 10" Ramp Requirements: Same width as stairways l"la:-: i mum slope First floor to grade: 1 in 12 All others: 1 in 8 Landings: 1 per 5' of rise minimum length of 5" Vertical Opening Limits and Fire Ratings: Type II: 2 hr. E xit Lighting Requirements: 1 foot candle at floor level Emergency Lighting Requirements: 1 foot candle at floor level Ceiling Heigh t Mimimums: Cot-ridors: 7' St5 ( p) Sec. 402 Sec. 1715 (b) Sec. 33(J2 (b) Sec. 3305 (n) Sec. 3601 3

PAGE 38

Unprotecte d if minimum of 20" f propert. 1 rum y lne and housing only mechanical equipment. f)g?lt'eNte? ; MnYl u dJl P./f!tV h b(; V;.1 rr; :;?.k t1lW .Jw:rv k #n. .k tt>'. HI.Jw. "'1ui(M tMt-/fn{lL. k w 11 :IN. .p.m,... 3

PAGE 39

\ . Handicap Requirements Residential: H-2 for over 8 unit one unit in 7 will be fully all doors shall be 32" nominal width e>: cept doors 1 ead i ng to uninhabitable areas. Plumbing Facilities: F-1, H-2 Occupancies shall provide at least one water closet and one lavatory for handicapped persons. Toilet Requirements: Compartments wi 11 be a . t least 36" in width with door swings at least 32" and with 32" of space unobstructed by door swing. Grab bars at least 24" in length, 31" parallel to floor. i n height. Lavatories: 26" in width, 12" depth and 29" i n height. Ma:dmum distance to rim -34". Handicapped Ramp Requirements: For all building types, ramps shall not e xceed a slope of 1 in 12. Stair Landing Requirements: A 25" by 42" space a .bove the first floor in each stariway when e xits useable by the handicapped are not provided. Required only in buildjngs with elevators to the upper floors. . Sec. 510 35

PAGE 40

Narrative Retail Space Analysis In my study of mixed use projects and how they function, I've become more aware of how important the functions at the street are. Typically, in a mixed use project, the first floor is used for retail operations. This first floor use might include space for food merchandising, service businesses or space for general retail operations. I have tried to analyze how these activi t ies work and what ingredients are important to their success. An analysis of the elements I have found follows. Retail Space Studies: Relation to the Street Establish a visual presence; assertive and inviting. Effective window placement allows pedestrians to walk w i t hin a distance w hich allows visual penetration, the effect of being within arms reach of merchandise. Elements of Draw Convience P lanned activities; the kind of regular scheduling which leads people to assume that some kind of activity s hould be going on. Specialty shops which offer hard to get items Elements of the space which are inviting or pleasant; planting, food, historical allusion, sun, view, etc. D isplay Large picture windows Use of vibrant, r ich colors Merchandise displays which exhibit to both sides o f the wi n dow , interior and exterior, are most effective. Fus s y is better than too neat a b alance of order and random e lements makes items more interesting and implies i tems are intended for living. The machine aesthetic doesn't work here. Careful d isplay implies quality merchandise. Use of Color Brightly c olored merchandise with neutral colored display cases show items and balance visual draws. L ighting Natural light produces rich colors and effectively contrast artificial lighting schemes. Drop l ights effectively highlight displays. Skylights in public areas can be effective, dramatic elements or, if done poorly, annoying. Architectural and Urban Design Elements Clear interior circulation is very important, visual corridors draw people into and through the spaces. Merchandise display s need to be, or appear to be, w ithin arms reach. Awnings : call out the entrance d isplay stores name o f fer protection t o pedestrians 3

PAGE 41

Mixed Use Those projects which seem to understand their sense of place. which resonate with the city and participate in the eiements and lif e are the best projects. Summary. In all retail stores, I've liked best, I see elements of the home. These projects provide security and sensory variety. Scales are carefully controlled. Colors are used to heighten effects and to add interest. Textures are varied. Displays are best when they become more interesting upon close inspection because o f the inclusion of small scale elements -layers of interest. Arrangements which are too neat imply hands off. Elements of d isarray, or r andom elements provide interest and imply that the items are meant for use, thereby making it easier to project those things into personal spaces. Good promotion captures a fantasy. Mixed use projects start with ground floor uses which, when done well, incorporate all of the above. Mixed use m ust satisfy basic human needs, draw people and offer dramatic content. The elements which I think are required to do that are: 1. An image of security 2. Draws: A. General food, services, general items such as newspapers, entertainment, cabarets, and bars) B . Specific -Demanded elements such as, tickets, fine food, designers clothing, jewelry, spice, coffee, tobacco, flowers, and books. C. Location -At the crossroads or the end of an axis. Dramatic Content ranges from pleasant to a festive atmosphere. It encompasses design elements with sensory variety in texture, scale, rhythm, and color. It also includes historical allusion or any other identifiable element which helps to distinguish a special sense of place. 3

PAGE 42

THESIS PROGRAM , Site Development: The site has been clear since 1978. It is level and is very clutter on the site. Below grade are some of remains of past structures in the form of brick rubble. In parts of the old stone foundation e:-: i st. and not e:-: pected -. . o cause any problems in e>:cavati on. Bedrock is 1 ocated appro>: i y 40" b.el ow the sut-face and groLtnd water is at a depth of abou t 22". Requirements: Totals (H)(l (J\)t_f uuo -1 0 Parking Square Office "t(,, '1/W f Retail 8,19->ti ( {{JD(}f Residential-z,t,,S'f?ri-:::-'U.P UN11...... ( 11.0) c:!r.Li!J.g 1f "}(. FJ,t.oo --z,1,1 • ) Total Gross r--'7 ( Z' Z tf Calculation: Office One space/ gross Retail One space/ 1'70 gt-oss Residential One and er12 l1alf/ un 1 t"

PAGE 43

Progra m Adju s tment Assuming most premiums can be utilized, a 6:1 FAR is reasonable. Lot size = 12,500 sq. ft. 6 x 12,500 = 75,000 sq. ft. 75,000 /1.2 (efficiency ratio) = 62,500 net sq. ft. Assume 8750 sq. ft. retail (from calc of 5 0 " front lot zoning> 62,500 sq. ft. -8750 = 53,750 sq. ft. net. 50% net = housing = 26,875sq. ft. net x 1.2 = 33,125 sq. ft. gross. 50% net= office= 26875 sq. ft. x 1.2 = 33,125 sq. ft. gross. 26,875/1000 sq. ft. (av. unit size) = 26.8 units = 27units. Parking: Total gross sq. ft. 750 = 100 spaces rqrd.

PAGE 44

Space Br-eakdown: Office 12,500/1500 = #8 Limit/floor= 47,400 Si:::::e 1500 User-s Gener-al Needs Open space, flexible needs LayoLlts -Reception Pr-esidents Office 2 Smaller-Offices Stor-age Confer-ence CompLlter-Space Sink Loading 15' }! 1 0 ' 2(>' 15' !! 2C)=' : : 15' 8' : : 10' 20' >! 2()' 20' ){ 1 0, _______________ _ Total 1455 Loading (one space/25,000) Adjacencies: • .:

PAGE 45

.. Large Office 2000 = # 6 Users Undetermined Needs Open space, flexible natural view of the city Layout -Reception Presidents Office 4 Smaller Offices Storage Conference Computer Space Sink 15' 20' 15' 15' 2c)=' 15' >{ tg ________ _ Total 2000 Loading (one space/25,000) Adjacencies: 10' 20' 10' 15' 20' 10'

PAGE 46

Residences: Size -900/ one bdrm. 12,500/900 = #14 User Singles, young couples, old couples without children Needs Natural light, privacy, spacious feel, southern exposure, views, access to court, individuality and charm. Layout -1. Entry 2. Living 3. Dirring 4. Kitchen 5. Pantry 6. Bath Public 1 lav. 1 w.c. 7. Bath Private 2 lavs. 1 w.c. 1 bath/shower 8. Bedroom closet 9. Study 10. 11. Circulation Adj a.cenc i es: 5' 1 0 ' 10" 10" 7=' 8" 11=' N 12' 10' N 8' 5 , 8 !' 15% = 117 + 783 = 900 41

PAGE 47

Residences: Large 12,500/1200 = #10 Size -1200 Two Bedroom User Same as Needs Same as above Layout Same as one bdrm except includes 2nd Bdrm. 132 Closet 12 Dressing Area 18 Circulation 15% = 141 + 945 = 1086 Adjacencies: Third bath = 40 is a possibility Entry closet 42

PAGE 48

.. Retail: RestaLir-ar.t Cafe/coffee Bar Jewelr-y Stor-e DrLig Store 3000 1000 600 1200 Flor-al Shop 600 LaLindry/Dry Cleaner-600 Seafood Stationery Book/Mag. Stor-e Total Loading (one space) Adjacencies: 600 400 600 10,100 260 43

PAGE 49

Zoning Regulations The site is within the B-7 business restoration zone. This zone is intended to preserve and improve older structures that are architecturally or historically significant. The zoning allows light industrial, general wholesale services, offices and high-density residential uses. Additional floor area is allowed with the development of residential underground parking or open space areas. Building floor areas cannot exceed 2 times the site with premiums the floor area can be increased to 4 times the site area. The building mass is not controlled by bulk standards. Location of Structures: no limitations Maximum Gross Area: base 2:1 F.A.R. Maximum 6:1 with premiums including residential. Off Street Parking: required for office 1 space/750 sq. ft. Off Street Loading: requirement varies with square feet of service. Zoning Ordinance Overview: Basic Maximum Gross Floor Area in Structures: Not greater then 2:1. However, three types of areas are exempt from the calculation of gross floor area provided: 1. A setback area which extends a minimum of fifteen feet from all property lines not abutting a public street of the zone lot at a height of one hundred and sixty feet above the street level. 2. A low level light area which extends a minimum of fifteen feet from the front line, is located be tween twenty and sixty feet abov e the street level and is located along the front line of the lot line. Such low level light area will receive the premiums explained in section 50-380(b) (3)d. Basic Maximum Gross F loor Areas Excluded From Calculations. A. Street level floor areas: 1. Within 50 feet of front line of lot 2. Areas with direct access to the street Building walls facing the street with 50% facade devoted to display windows. 4 . entertainment or cultural of the uses. B. Floor area for dwelling units not e xceeding two times the area on the zone lot with up to 50% of this area being used for other uses by right. Uses Allowed: Allowed uses are varied and extensive. They include most kinds of retail office uses and light industrial. There are limitations on auto wrecking operations and the storage of dangerous or flamable materials. Parking is prohibited within a space which extends form street level upwards a distance of twelve feet in any structure located within thirty-five feet of

PAGE 50

Guidelines for Site Development Costs: Based on a low average of 5% of building cost, condition of the site. 1. Site Preparation 1% to 3% of building costs 2. Parking 350 sq. ft./car 3. Sidewalks and Terraces 1% to 7% of building costs 4. Storm Drainage .5% to 2.5% of building cost 5. Landsca.ping 1% to 2% of building cost BLi i 1 ding Cost: Net Area/Effi c iency Ratio = Gross Area Gross Area x Uni t Cost = Building Cost due to the Efficiency Ratio: a ratio of the net to the unassignable arEi\_e::pressed as percentages of the gross area. Net Assignable Areas: Include the sum of all functional space' required to serve the basic program. Unassigned Areas: Consist of all other spaces in the building, specifically c irculation mechanical area, general janitor unassigned storage, walls and partitions. Efficiency and Quality: There is inversely efficiency qLlC:l. l ity. a certai n aspect of architectural quality which i s proportional to the "plan efficiency" of a bLtilding. i t is important to predict and assign a reasonable for a building which would contribute to its expected Common Range SLtperb Grand ent Moderate Economical Aust e r e 50/50 % 55/45% 60/40% 65/35% 67/33% 70/30 % Re c ommended Efficiency Ratios 4 6

PAGE 51

Administr-ation Dor-mitor-y Li br-a. r-y 55/45'1. 60/40/. 65/35/. Note: A pr-edominance of small r-ooms in thG pr-ogr-am r-equir-es higher in cir-culation and par-titions leading to a r-easonable efficiency r-atio of 55/45/. in an administr-ation building. Components of Unassigned Space Efficiency Ratio 30.0/. 35. (>/. Cir-culation 16.0/. 20.0/. Mechanical 5.0/. 5.5/. Walls, Par-titions, Str-uctur-e 7.0/. 7.0/. Toilets . Unassigned Stor-age C). Building Cost Estimate: 1. 5/. 0.5/. 0.5/. 40. 22. (>/. 7.5/. 8.01. 1. 5/. 0.5/. 0.5/. 60/40/. = 1.5 45.0/. 50.0/. 24.0/. 25.0'1. 8.0/. 10.0/. 9.51. 10.0/. 2. (l/. 2.5/. 0.5/. 1 . 0/. 1.0/. 1. 5/. Efficiency Ratio Pr-ice persq. ft. $40 A. Building Cost B. Fi>: ed EqLli p. C. Site Devel. D. Total Constr-ue. E. Site Acquisition F . Moveable Equip. G. Pr-ofessional Fees H. Contingencies J..:.. 69.miD..:.. 90,000 (8/. of A> (5/. of A> ( 12' 000 N (8/. of A> (6/. of D) ( 10/. of D> Qf_ Rl. 1.5($40/s.f. ) = $5,400,000 = $432,000 = $270,000 = $6, 102,000 $150/s.f. ) = $1,875,000 = $432, (H)0 = $324,000 = $610,200 = -K. Total Budget Rqr-d. :ed EquipmentCommer-cia. ! Office Bldq . Housing Moveable EquipmentOffice Low 51. .5/. 7% of building cost. 7 10'1. of building cost. 47

PAGE 52

Housing -Medium 10 -15% Contingencies-Medium 10% Cost of Parking per Unit Surface Structured
PAGE 53

Community Does Does Does Concerns the project respond to the opportunities of the place? it participate in the city? it establish a natural passage between nodes of activity. Is it responding to potential future needs? Does it contribute to the community? Does it relate to existing context? Does is fit into existing land use patterns? Energy Concerns Is alternative transportation encouraged? Is passive solar design (daylighting and heating> ma>:imized? Neighborhood Scale Is landscaping an integral part of the design? Is the impact of automobile storage minimized? Are the dwelling units related to the streets? Are there public spaces (bus stops, pocket throughs, etc.) which would make the project a larger neighborhood? Is the height sympathetic? Is the bulk sympathetic? Is the detailing sympathetic? Are the openings sympathetic? Are the materials sympathetic? Is the landscaping sympathetic? parks, walkpart of the Shelter Are the units clustered in such a way as to protect outdooor spaces form winter and storm winds? Are entrances oriented away from storms? Are units clustered in such a way as to catch the winter sun? Are there provisions to shade outdoor spaces in the summer? Self Image Can each unit and related outdoor space be identified? visually Does each unit have some private outdoor space directly related to it? Is there a sense of unity to the project? Is there a sense of relatedness between the various Is an urban lifestyle projected by the design project? Does the project appear to be well-built with an lasting quality? Orientation uses? of the air of Does the project have a sense of place within the neighborhood? 49

PAGE 54

Are openings arranged to facilitate breezes for ventilation? Can windows be shaded when necessary? Is the potential for views maximized? Privacy/Individuality-Is there amenities of city living? an exchange in privacy for the Is territoriality enhanced public at private ? through a clear sequence from Are sound barriers provided Are massing and landscaping from the street? Security/Community between Ltn i ts? used to p!-eserve visual privacy Are public and semi-public spaces used to foster a sense of community? Are neighborhood amenities designed to provide interaction between the project and the neighborhood? Can the street see in to the project? Relationship to neighborhood Are setbacks compatible with the n eighborhood? Are stylistic details compatible with the neighborhood? Is massing compatible with the Access How are units connected to the street ? Does internal circulation connect to the Is parking rel ati vel y convent ent to tt , e Are transportaion alternatives (ma= walking) encouraged through design? Do fire vehicles have access? Are open spaces accessable to Economy Are common walls maximized ? street? Ltni ts? transit, bicycling, Are non-specific spaces left-over spaces on the site minimized? Are elevators avoided or kept to a mi imum? Are interior public spaces maximized? Maintenance Is trash disposal convenient and unobtr usive? Credit: This design checklist is based on t h e list compiled by Jim Wright. Thanks Jim. 50

PAGE 55

Research and Preliminary Sketches From massing studies determine premiums Design Due Presentation Drawings and Model Massing and Development Weeks 1 2 A. Final Site Analysis 12-26-83 -1-29-84 May 8 4 weeks 10 weeks B. Concept Sketches and Massing Studies 1. a. In a journal explore as many diverse massing approaches as possible. b. Refine three massing studies c. Model massing studies C. Construct Site Model Weeks 3 -4 A. Analyze and commit to one massing scheme B. Draw axonometric of scheme of model massing scheme on site model C. Determine structural bay system and organize its relation to street and the building's eire. systems. D. Mass model Weeks 5 -6 A. Refine concepts: try for clarity of e xpression in ma.ssi ng B. Cut sections through massing C. Design unit floor plans D. Design retail floor plans E. Design atrium and plaza plans Design Development Presentat ion -24" >: 36" Requirements 1. Concept Derivation: Statement and Sketches * 2. Building Plan: at each level showing circulation system and the hierarchy of transition from public to private. 3. Site Sections * 4. Street and Courtyard Elevations 5. Elevation Study: Large scale to show matls. and colors * 6. Parking Plan 7. Snapshot Sketches: Showing the character of the space ' A 8. Model f'l-:: 30' C > 9L:ite Plan: Showing immediate conte:-:t 1" = and relationship to context; also showing site analysis. /. PV/>rfJ I./A4fJ '11' f't_l.dJ ':>f'?71:11.t:;? I II'; '2.00' 51

PAGE 56

Appendices

PAGE 57

Books: Aalto, Alvar. Edited by Goran MIT Press, Massachusetts. 1978. Alexander, Christopher, et. al. B New York, Oxford University Press, 1977. Bofill, Richardo. Editions l'Equerre, 1981. Brettell, Richard R. ib 6Cbii ib Inc., 1979. Jones, William C., and Kenton Forrest . Pruett Publishing Co., Boulder, Colo., B 1973. Murray, Peter. Ib Qf tb Schocken Books, New York, N.Y., Plesums, Guntis. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross! Inc. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 1978. a Qigo RC Publications, Inc. D.C., 1977/79. Qi9D Publications, Inc. Wa.shington, D.C., 11 ; 177. Sherwood, Roger. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University 1978. Periodicals: "The Si:-: Shops, Cit i cor-p Center. " L . iCiQC July 82, pgs. 180-183. RC "Ba.ttery Park. II lo2tiiYi gf J.QYCOS:L ... BIBJ.!!.. June 82, pgs. 30-31. "Chi Stopher Street HOLI.Si ng. II Jan. 81, p•;)S. 40-43. "East River Development; Multi --Use Development. 11 B.B Aug. 80. pg. 45. "Fanueil Hall After Five Years June 81, pgs. 24-31. "Large Building Projects, Review." BlBJ.!'... Boston 52

PAGE 58

June 82, og5. 28-37. 111'1u 1 t i Use ! • f )t. f= ,:,:_tl i r; n . " !•ial"ch 81, p •;jS. 12()-127. .. 111'-!f?.lrl I"IE< I "ket GJ..:::\55 F'ala:e. II . ..:... June 81, pgs. 42-49. F \ evi etJ, ------11 f)h Dp 5, D+ f ice!::: , t s i n C i t y' C:E.'n t F': oj .:o:>r.:: t.. " 8I..t!1...:... July pgs.72-77, Cent E n--; Faneui l Hall; BostDn July 1:31, pgs. 1 0 0-106. : 3hDppi n<:;J South f!treet, F\enovat ion and Con5tr .uct ion. 11 --"Ur -ban Dc:-:>v e::.D prrH-?.nt p, -ojects F:f.?--te;
PAGE 60

chen and asso inc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SOIL & FOWDATION ENGINEEIING 96 SOUTH ZUNI STlEET COHCO Holdings, Ltd., • DENVII, COLORA t1lO 10223 • 303/744-7105 Novem. ier 18, 1981 Subject: Revise .. Reconmendation, Soil and Fob . dati on Investigation, Old Place, 16th Street and reet, Denver, Colorado. Job No. 2.\,1078 Joint Venture with Westminster and Country Properties, Limited c/o C. W. Fentress 511 16th Street Suite 600 i Denver, Colorado 80202 Attention: Mr. Jim Bradburn Gentlemen: We have completed drilling and testing for the tw. test holes which were deepened In accordance with our letter dated 30. 1981. Presented here are the revised foundation recommendat io s based on the results of the additional field and laboratory Subsurface Conditions: Test Holes 2 and 3, located as shown on the attached Fig. 1, were redrtlled to a bedrock penetratior of 40 feet in order to Investigate the bearing capacity of the bedrock at these depths. Logs of Holes 2 and 3 are shown on the attached Fig. Results of unconsolidated; undrained triaxial compression tests on samples obtained from the deeper penetrations are presented on the attached Figs. 4 through 6 and the attached Table I. Results o f the triaxial tests and standard penetration tests indicate the is very hard at the depths sampled. .-OFFICIS: COLORADO SPRINGS, COLOIADO I GLINWOOD SPIINGS, I CASPII, WYOMING

PAGE 61

< ,, COMCO Holdings, Ltd. November 18, 1981 Page 2 Groundwater level measurements made when the holes were redrilled and five days after redrilling indicate the groundwater level is at a depth of about 22 to 23 feet corresponding to elevations of about 74 to 75 feet. These levels are about 2 feet below the levels measured when the holes were originally drilled. Foundation Recommendations: The standard penetration tests indicate the bedrock strength increases below a bedrock penetration of about 20 feet. Based on our analyses, we recommend that piers be designed for a maximum end bearing pressure of 60,000 psf and a skin friction of 6,000 psf for penetrations up to 20 feet into the unweathered bedrock. Pier penetration exceeding 20 feet into the unweathered bedrock may be designed for a maximum end bearing pressure of 70,000 psf and a skin friction of 7,000 psf. All other recommendations presented in our original report under Job No. 22,107, dated May 6, 1981, should be followed. Underdratn System: We understand a floor slab system which would allow groundwater to flow above the floor slabs during periods of high 1 water level is being considered in lieu of the underdrain system recommended in our letter of October 30, 1981. The proposed system would consist of a floor slab with pressure relief holes through to the underslab gravel. The highest groundwater level measured during our investigation was about 1 foot above the proposed floor slab elevation of 80. Conceptually, we believe the proposed floor slab system could perform properly with respect to its ability to relieve hydrostatic pressures on the floor slabs during periods of high groundwater level. However, the owner should aware that the floor slab level appears to be within the range of normal groundwater fluctuation. This could result In floor sl_ab inundation. In addition, relatively minor changes in the groundwater geology could result in long-term inundation of the floor slab tf an underdrain system Is not used. We recommend that multiple sumps be placed beneath the floor slab so that pumps can be installed in the sumps to remove the water In the event prolonged inundation does occur. If you have further questions concerning these matters or if we can be of additional assistance, please call us. BEB/Jah Rev. By DMJ Attachments cc: KKBNA Attention: Mr. Bill O'Neal Sincerely, CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Bruce E. Berends, P.E.

PAGE 62

Utility Contacts Telephone: Jack Hansen, Asst. Manager for Network Distribution Nountai n Bell 778-4806 Waste Waters Don Stinson Wastewater Management, City and County of Denver 629-1451 x252 Water: Gas: Randy Christensen or Jerry Walden Water Board, City and County of Denver 623-2500 Pete McNeil Public Service Co. of Colorado 571-8676 Electricity 1 Steve Douglas Public Service Co. of Colorado 571-8572 or 571-8829 Utility Easement Abandonment: Bill Melton .. Design Engineering of Public Works, City and County of Denver 575-2605 Fire Protection: Eric Neff Denver Fire Department 575-2540 Mass Transit: Ron Clark Regional Transportation District 759-1000 x497 ZlJNINb: ,. .

PAGE 63

""\ I . l . , ' PROnLEOFTHEDENVERHOMEBUYER All LARGE CITY ALL WESTERN DENVER HOME IUYEA HOME BUYERS HOME IUYUS Chcrccter illi c lfl't 1917 1979 "" Bor.:O.;trMedlon_A_O_t ___ ---il nori---;;-,-;;.;---JS nora Hcuaehotel Size 1 or 2 3 o r more Morllol SIOIUI Srngle Morrreel Flrllllme llunra Purchost Prlct Lt$S thon S30. 000 SJO.OOO to lo S79. 999 sao.ooo or more Median Aoe of Home New E•i st i ng 2S or more veors Conelomlnlum llunrs Annuot Household Income Less than S 1 5 .000 S75.00C. to 135 .000 or more Meelron lmPOrlonct Of Seconel Income• Toto! Monthly Houalno Eapenat SJOO o r tess SJO 1 to $.600 Mo r t Ilion \600 Mtdion Monthly HOUIIIII E&Ptlllt Total Mortgaoe e>ovmenl Rtol estate Ia xu Utilities Hazard in$uronct DownPOymenl 10'1. o r ItS$ 20'1. or more Median Housing taPtnn taceedlnl 15'1. of IIOUJthOICIIncomt .... lS.7,. 43 . • , " '' 4 . 1"4 39.7'1o 21. 6 % 3.C.7"4 65 . 3"4 13. 1 ... 6 .7, 32 .1' 31.5.._ S21 .782 " '"" s l'lo su,. 43 .. sso S55 S15 :1 ! ; .1'\o s 1; • .(\ "Percentooe ot househol ds wllh two odu111 tr tor 10'1o or mort of totot llous,ellold Income. Sourct:U.S. Leoout of Sovlnoa Anociotlons . 'I ... 45 .2'1o 25.0' 75.0'11. 24.0, 49.3" 32 . 90,. u ... S43.SOO 37. 00,. 63 . 0 ... 17,1, n/o 8 . 9• . , ... 33.6'1o 12.3' S23 . 370 .,,,. 1S. I'Io 78 ..... ... S40 6 S281 \63 sso 112 23. 3 ... S6.2"4 S7,7S1 . , ... S2.1'1o 47.2"4 26.1'1o 73.\l'lo li. S ... 6 .0io 20.5• .. 40 . 2• .. 33 .3 "' .000 26.6 lO .SO,. ,.,, ... 4 . 6 .... 17.2 % 36. 8 57 ..... 3 . 3 ... ..... $617 S4S2 sn S7S S11 15.3'10 59 . 7 ... S1S.S32 .. ___ 45 . 9"4 25.5' U .S". ,.,,, J ..... 16 1' 39 .7• .. .. S73.000 1a.a• ... 7 1. 2 ... 25.7' 22. 6 .. 42 . 9'\o SJ2.106 ss.o-. ? . so . • 33 . 8 ..... 63 .6 .. $676 S533 $65 Sll l).to.;. S3. S"4 S1S.927

PAGE 64

ujor lrite, vacaot for ten n on Dowutowu Ithaca'• in shoppiug maD, u filled Werner Selifmauu &: .U. iatea with au abatract mpciliou that blend• ulifully with ita older fhbors. ter ltiuJcafills a tnl-year-old on The Cummons,Jonnerly oum's Main Street . The :nis carefully cksigmd in s of scalt and materials to fit other buildings on. the mall ; ' aced with reddish granite off-white and gray concrete rtos panels . Where the aped Cummons of the former and Tioga Streets meet ng fHI.ge top), the juncture is rniud by an oversiud win in the Center (facing page, m right ) . .l_'tiltt.tg U1t VU!U By the 1970s , Downtown Ithaca, like so many other small towns across America, was dying. And, like other towns, Ithaca decided to fight back . Two blocks on State (main) St. in the center of the business district were turned into a pedestrian mall. Over time, a number of the old 19th-Century buildings were restored, and today life has begun to return to downtown. The most recent impetus for this change has been the opening of the new Center Ithaca designed by Werner Seligmann & Associates . The change, however, did not occur overnight, and there has been at least one major casualt y . during the transforma tion, which has some relevance to the new center. When State St. was turned into a mall, a number of buildings were demolished on its south side , where Tioga St. i ntersects . One of these was the major depanment store, Rothschild's, which moved into a new build ing (by Warner Burns Toane & Lunde) at the east end of the mall. The vacant site strad dling Tioga St. '10.'3S to be as the new.)_hopping center, but it was ten years be-l ld fore a developer could be found. The panment store was able to struggle along dur. ing those years and was e-ven able to hold ou 1 until after the opening of Center Ithaca bu1 was e-ventually, and unfonunately recrntlr . forced to close . For Seligmann, the obvious thing not to do with such a major, centrally located site wa, ro recreate a suburban mall downtown, as so many other cities have done. Instead, hr wanted to recreate the downtown--the mai n srreel--that had been taken away. The idea was not to make a blockbuster , but a trur piece of infill architecture that related to th r buildings around it in terms of scale an d materials . It would contain lower-le-vel sh op ping. with offices and living above , whic h i > an arrangement not uncommon to the o l der buildings on State St. The of the new building is clad i n reddish granite and concrete asbestos panel, that approximate the tones , text ' ures, an d scale of surrounding structures. It is of a modular design, detailed in a rigorous . mathematically ordered progression which.

PAGE 65

l-i-t-HI i .J_ ... IOEST..__,. I STlliWlE I "T I 8 8 , 8 1::] H 1" A ...,..____, C/'12m . along with the materials dearly delineates the levels of retail, office, and residential from each other. The rationalized , symmetri cal , and classicall y proportioned design fits well with its neighbors, many of which are of ltalianate , and therefore also of quite rationalized design . Where the center faces Tioga St. , which now also a mall . an oversized and mirrored window at the office level has been designed to recognize that juncture. A galleria along the front and part of the rear of the ground floor approximates that of the new depart ment store to the east; it is equipped with overhead doors that open the main market area directly to the mall or to the parking area Jn stairwell (top) and at the rear. When the doors are dosed, the small cuurtyard (facing lof! main entrance, which is located where the enright ) panels trance to the old department store was , is are imaginativel y used to apprnr used to enter the 55,000 sq ft of retail space almost like stone facing. on the basement, ground, and mezzanine Second-flour office s loolc intf • t levels. This space is divided into two areas: main atrium (facing page , t o 1 one surrounding a large glass-enclosed lqt), and pipe rail stairs near rh. atrium, the other with a small sky lit courtyard . front facing the mall (right) (inspired b y Sangallo) where the court of the to individual shops. old department store used to be . While a mezzanine surrounds part of the eastern section, at that level in the western section , small shops at the front are entered b y individual stairs from ground level. This gives each its own identity, Seligmann says , l i ke those on !'\ewberry St. in Boston. None of the 25,000 sq ft of office space on the second floor has been rented yet, but on the third and fourth floors, almost all of the 62 apartments, which include two-bedroom units , one-bedroom two-stor y maisonettes, one-bedroom floor-through units and flats , and studio apartments, were taken immediately . And for good rea son. While thev are

PAGE 66

.. • • .... o •• o•W"-... , o I ....... ..a. • ' 1 nail. they are designed and nicel y det iled , and offer ; n extraordinar'} ' t ven their numbe . ritiqae. he onlv major problem with the apartments >ncerns the one-bedroom maisonettes, hich are all at the somh side of the building, which origi .ully designed with spill stairs leading to th e bedrooms. At the last tinute (during construction ) the city decided >iral stairs were not allowed , and conven onal ones used instead . Although eligmann made them as discreet as possible, 1ey still occupy too much space and overhelm the small livin g rooms. There are more serious problems down in 1e retail s paces . This area was conceived by as a large , bas i call y unobstructed >Vered n a rketplace whe r e goods would be tid from i osks and stalls . But as these were esigned , i y the associated architects Perry, ean, Stat I & Rogers of Boston , they almost > mpletel r obliterate the idea of the open, r y marke; p lace of steel and glass that was esigned . \o' hat should have been light, deli lte stalls are horse y obstructions made of > arselv de dark, heav y wood. One s tall , h i ch i s a shop, ha s been placed directl y 1 front o f the main staircase leading t o the •Wer level thus cutting short a major axis 1d obscu nng a main circulation route. lsewhere throughout the center, shopown s have asted up signs in their windows, 1permarl roof InTact (not shown) . E n r r ance to apartm r nt• is at Center , near cit:oparlcing st r turt (facing pag . . bottO'Ift) , w i Tt grocer display s vegetablts ().Ad flowers outside.

PAGE 67

'I t e i s d d l g d 1 . h e t :a 1e 1-is : e te s : main atrium d lift), and pifH d fruntfacingwwJI te to individual shops . a ( til a! I S ' " on •n 1e m s , .s. l i -rf'

PAGE 68

Belgium A Set of Apartments Over Shops and a Triad of Town Houses A recurring theme in the current proliferation of alternative architectural approaches t o the established dogmas of modernism i s the desire to re-establish and repair th e built fabric of existing towns and cities . In Europe, perhaps more so than in North America the original centers of some of the older settlements have remained sufliciently intact to permit repair. Many others, howe ver. have hecn trans formed beyond recognition by random and ill-considered postwar developments. Kapellen, a small Belgian town of 11,800 people north of Antwerp, attracts little of the attention of th e larger Europ ean cities . Nor does it ha ve the special urban qualities of the nearby historic towns of Bruges or Ghent. However, two recent projects in the town by architect Jo Crepain demonstrate appropriate tech-niques for urban repair and town building . On Engels elei , a street of two-and three-story houses and shops close to the center of the town, Crepain has built two shops and five apartments, all within a three-story brick box. The apartments arc on two le ve l s over the shops anti i nclud e four two bedroom unit s a nd a single bedroom studio apartment. The brick box has been hollowed out to create a classical U-shaped plan with an entrance court on th e street. This court is covered h y a curved translucent roof, connected to the street by a flight of stairs, and paved, lit , and planted as a small communal space we d ge d between the publi c domain of the street and the privacy of th e houses . 13y interpreting the traditional pattern of li'ing over th e shop and slightly increasing the densit y of development on th e site, th e sche m e not only reinforc es the life on the st r ee t but also introduces differing scale s of space s . Crepain has trans lated these different scales emphatically in the buil d ing d es ign . H e has created a symmetrical front to the s treet, with the windows of the resi--dential units directlv rel a ted t o the inc tabl y large ground floor s h o p windows The first floor Jiving rooms facing ontc the street a re planned with generous s. circular windows, each of which framt central free-standing firepla ce . An extc chimney flue th e hay and artiCt late s th e small square win dows to thet floor bedrooms. The design has created not only a for f ront to the st reet hut literally a faces "looking over" Thist ercise in anthropomorphism is complet .... . , ., -

PAGE 69

B)'' reemphasizing rather th:P.n disrupting, a repetitive ro :Df line becomes an im ag, iuative way to expand space in this Tudor Revival st}'le apartment building. Credits Architects: Swaney Kerns Architects, Robert Barber Anderson, Washington, DC. Tom Kerns, principal/ di r ector of design; Bob Anderson, principal/project de sig . aer; Levy Santos,job cap tain; Don Harris, Lynne Watkins, Abby Goodman, de ign team. Consultants: E.K. Fox & As sociates, Ltd., mechanical/ electrical; Funkhouser As sociates, structural; Soils T t:sting Services, Stephen L. Tuttle, structural testing. Modelmaker: Deborah Yin. Model photographer: Peter Harholdt. . :Rf!Dderer: Trebor Nosredna, M>ckey Finn, Deborah Yin. Ronald J. Cohen, Rockville, Md. L .JJdl l_..tCl Project: Renovation and addition tn an office building in Washington, DC. Program: It was the client's hope to expand the office area while preserving r..1e simple elegance of the post-WW-1 Tudo r Revival apartment building. Energy effi cien cy, ac cess for handicapped, flexibility u, interior space, and a second access w ere a strong considerations. Site: Between a French Enligh .tenment Revi val and a modern office buildi in the busi ness district of Washington, DC . Solution: A addition, s tepping back gradually, with balconies and sky ' ,ghu at each level, maintains the scale and of the existing fa<;ade while adding needed To accentuate this stepped d esign, as weU as to alleviate the problem 0 1 . matching the existing brick, a gradation o red tones was chosen, with the lighter brick ; : each as cending level. The roof line desigr ecalls the mansard roof of its French Revival '\ '!ighbor. As dramatic is the curving wall hich de fines a special two-story area at the cellar and first-floor leH:ls. The emerald glazed tiles, when lit, crea e an un usual and intriguing effect in an ar• a s uitable for cafes, atriums, or a sculpture ga d en. heat pt-np units and through-wall air handling un 1 s in the rest of the building permit energy fle xibility, and glass areas on the south allow some solar heating. The main lobby at the ' ellar level provides easy ramp access. Construction methods and materr us: Brick and concrete block walls; contra t , ng brick used to recreate the effect of lim ilcme trim on existing . building; glazed tile . ..... . ,. Jury comments Hartman:. One point I'd like to m . n ke about this is that we've seen a number of vnsuccess ful and labored attempts to design c • d build ings thai fit into contextual neigh h o rhoods. We've seen buildings that were jtdt down right silly from their excesses . A1 . d here's one doing something that seems Iii e a very useful thing to do, a very importan thing to do, and at least it's not sill y or \. nre 'ated to what ' s around it. Frasca: Well, that entrance at m e gTound level looks a little silly. Stein: The counter note on that m 1 y b.e that after you've seen that one witticism 11nce, will you still enjoy it as much when y q u see it every day as you pass by? Or does it then be come a little bit unnecessary, a bit too much?

PAGE 70

, , • ......... I .. ...... w --... ' ? r -! UPPER R.OOA • • • • • • • • • • • LOWER R.OOA

PAGE 71

t' t c c :;:; 0 cz: c e .. u Gaslight Square , top, by Henriquez and Todd i-s the centerpiec e of Gas town, the renewed waterfront neighborhood where V a r 1couver was born . At one poin t Canadian Pacifi c Railway wanted to rede v elop the entir e ar ea and build highrises reached b y plat forms across it s tracks. Only one was buil t, Granvill e Square by Franci s Donaldson (abo v e). 66 AlA JOURNAL/DECEMBER 1981 . I A remarkable new spine and fOOll point The province ' s most recent contribution to Vancouver v;as I large and remarkably benign one, but it didn ' t start out to be that way . The provincial government in the to solidate some of its many offices scattered around the c1ty combine them with a new courthouse. It engaged Arthur son a s architect and asked him to design an office tower w1th tbl courthouse as its base in the middle of a park . It is said, perh af'! apocryphally , that the then premier of the prov i nce wanted tl':e two to have a floor for every yP.ar of his life . He was then _ss. Midway through design, the premier and his regime were replaced by liberals and, as one observer put h., .. I / -

PAGE 72

A t right , the l ull swee p with th e old c ourth ouse at l eft for egro und , then th e terraced o ve r offi c e bl ock, and finall y, und e r it s c o c k e d c anop y, th e n ew c ourthous e . Above, th e opposi t e v i e 1 1 f rom th e n ew courthou se. B e low, under th e canop y. 68 AlA JOURNAl. .'DECEMBER 19111 the public than their employees. Robson Squ\1 e succeeds far b e tter as urban d e s ign than its components d e a s buildings . They have their moments, a notab : one being the g Tat space beneath the courtroom canopy (abo v left) with its dn. m atic concrete bents. But even here the visito r wonders about h • ishing all of this structure on what is essen tially a foyer for t .. te courtrooms. In fact , the rat w of foyer space to working space seems exces sive until one see < t he section at left , showing just how much of the bui l d ing area is " backstage " (secure , nonpublic spaces such

PAGE 73

. . ... ms and judges ' chambers) and underground. ! ms very lavish, and, despite what Erickson likes canopy symbolizing the openness of the judicial has very little to do except imprint his " signa ding. building is considerably more wonderful to vork in . The office space is entirely under ter or under plaza. Tvoicallv the of course , and some s paces look up to the undersides of pools and out to the backs of waterfalls. Neither of the new buildings meets the streets with much grace . For all of the lightness of the canopy and pleasantness of landscape above, at ground level the pedestrian encounters mainl y harsh concrete walls . (Robson Square thus shares with Robert Venturi 's Pennsylvania Avenue olan in ' ....... . 1 .._ ,. • •

PAGE 74

lll""'l . • . ,. . 1 __. ---monument to itself became people's park." None nts can precisely delineate who contributed what phosis, but the tower turned into a long low struc IUCh open space as it is building. While it owes Roche's Oakland, Calif., museum with its : rraced roofs, there is nothing quite like it in the classical old courthouse that was originally :molition and is about to become the municipal 1roject, called Robson Square , occupies three "T"'Lt t '" • with cafes and other amenities. The middle block contains the provincial offices, but not so you would notice at a casual glance , so covered over are they by pools, waterfalls, plazas, plantings and cascading stairs. This element then bridges the second cross street to the new courthouse, covered over by a huge angular canopy that is a filigree of glass and !lletal arching seven stories above ground. The muscular end wall of the courthouse is shown above, beneath the canopy . This unique three-block spine has given downtown Vancouver its largest open space anci firl':t rP
PAGE 75

1 I I (/) Q) (0 .c \ . r / \. 17th st. \ .... I ; I I I I I :_ _______ '\ ( _______ j 16th st. SITE PLAN -I (/) I

PAGE 76

D 0 W D ! D D t--L---L-"--__._..___.___, 0 0 0 D W D DO DODDDW D 16th ST. ELEVATION_ SCALE OF DRAWINGS 1/16":1'-0"

PAGE 77

D DDDDDDD D D D DDDDD I DOD DOD DOD ODD D D D D llli illlillillllfl II lUi D D D D D D.DD DO DO D.D DO D D.DD DODD D D D D D UARKET ST. ELEVATION.

PAGE 78

! I . ODD DOD ODD ODD t--,....-. I I I ' l:[J I t-[illD t:r I !'-17-t' I (\ h C: j M I _jj u h 1 / ,'>-'.::.:... --" F I.e:: ..... I-. "-I... "--

PAGE 79

I I I t--I I I II i i I II r--IHf JLJLJl II II II II II II II nooDDDDDDD DDDC F= m ODD E t--1----1----t--t----f--f--1--I= 1--------f-f--1---f-f--f--1---f.-I ODD E 1--------1--f--1--1---f--1--1---f.-t----f--I--1--1---f--f--1---f.ODD r---E t----I-I--t--t--t----f--1---f.-I -f-f--f-f--1---f--f--f.ODD I I r-I t::::::: I '--'----->---'----'--'-I I I =-= r1C::r t::::::: I F "-'. '"-\ Ill b [IJJ l I I I ] E:== 1=. F= ;=_::: J=:J I !I II I I r--= r--= [IJJ I II II I I Q n TI r::--:-::: t-"-=1 o [IJJ I II li I I E IF= 0 TI I== 1 am a:a:a r--I EH ffi EHffl::! !==,.., )J II -,u I D /Dhrr= 0 0 (ly?;i SECTION B B 1 " X 71 =-'/-/H a: ll!!'i=#/

PAGE 80

DO \ ' I <{ m::J LQA.PIHC.. DOC..!<. 0 • 0 • A Tf'IUM • . L -1 I -L-------. -----l I I I ATRIUM PLAN 0 oO oO 0 =Or

PAGE 81

---------J ....._....___.r-----. -----1 • z '-----= :: :..-=:: = X ---II '-mJs: LaJ I I I I

PAGE 82

--• • 0 0 >< ,_. --3rd FLOOR PLAN

PAGE 83

• • D oOo D 6th FLOOR PLAN o 0

PAGE 84

• • LJes BBJ • • 11 rl----JI rl-I -, ,----J, rl-= -----____ ..JL ___ _lL___ ---.. Tlo'olD I I I I I I ;" I I I . L ____ j L ____ _j L ___ ..J L __ j L ___ j t------' ( 20' 1,----l r-----, r---1 r---, r---l I I L ____ j L ____ -I L ___ ...J L __ _j L ___ .l_. 0 oOo 0 IJ D D 0 7th FLOOR PLAN

PAGE 85

• • • • • • 8-11th FLOOR PLAN

PAGE 86

r •• ' ; . ; < . -. . I ' I 11 i 1 r : 1 , . : .. . . .. ! I ; i i01 •• ' : i I i ' I ' I I : i r----------; $ 11' ' I I I ! I I F : .. ': n . !Ofo •:>.s.• n ---------. Il--l ; -,.. 0 X I I i I j I d I . 1 . ..... I ' ' I I I i I I I I ' 1 1 I i l I I I i ' I r. I i I i . I I ' 0 I I FIRST LEVEL PARKING. }'LAN • • < • • • :. • • . • . .... J . • • • --.. --• . ._ ..... • --.... --u ! I I I -I I I I I I I I

PAGE 87

t ! I -I . ! • I ; l I r I r I t f 1 -I r l l t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I j I I I'-' l .. i ' : . . ' ' .. b , ' • . :.:::::..-::.=..-R I n . ' I I . I 1 I I I i i . 8 I l I I I I I I 1 I i : ' . ' ! I I i : I 0 I 1 j i I • I I I I I It--J I I I I i c I I >< c; -c_ r-----" A q I I :I : . --i_: I I I f, r-,., I I l I I 1 ;;-I ;' 'I I I ! I ' ' ' j I ! : ' SECOND L.EVEL PARK1NG .PLAN llill I lr\ l ! I I I I I I I ! ! I I ! I I I -"-

PAGE 88

-' . ' I I I I . I IIIII ! I t I I I I I . ! I I \ I I . i i I I I I I I I I i R ' I j ,... I I I ' ... .. r \ \r .. ,.,. : / \ ' . . ? z , I . . . I . i i I I R I --z -----------. ! I I I : ! I I I i I I I I I I ! I b ! I I I ! ! R , I ! ! I ; , . . i ' I . I ! / j I I I i I I I I I ' II ! I r----I = i I . I ' I ' : _ II .: L" .. j b 8 I . X I / -. .. / . .... ' . . . . I . .... I i I p I A I : I I I I I i I I I I ! I I I I I ' I ! I I I I ! I I I I j : I i I I I i i I ,.,. THlRD_LEVEL __ PARKJr,, G PLAN -.... ... ' .


ERROR CAUGHT WHILE SAVING NEW DIGITAL RESOURCE TO SOLR INDEXES
5/13/2019 5:45:16 PM

Unable to connect to the remote server
at SolrNet.Impl.SolrConnection.PostStream(String relativeUrl, String contentType, Stream content, IEnumerable`1 parameters) in d:\BuildAgent-01\work\e4797f8bddc217f4\SolrNet\Impl\SolrConnection.cs:line 119
at SolrNet.Impl.SolrConnection.Post(String relativeUrl, String s) in d:\BuildAgent-01\work\e4797f8bddc217f4\SolrNet\Impl\SolrConnection.cs:line 84
at SolrNet.Impl.SolrBasicServer`1.SendAndParseHeader(ISolrCommand cmd) in d:\BuildAgent-01\work\e4797f8bddc217f4\SolrNet\Impl\SolrBasicServer.cs:line 112
at SobekCM.Engine_Library.Solr.v5.v5_Solr_Controller.Update_Index(String SolrDocumentUrl, String SolrPageUrl, SobekCM_Item Resource, Boolean Include_Text) in C:\GitRepository\SobekCM-Web-Application\SobekCM_Engine_Library\Solr\v5\v5_Solr_Controller.cs:line 59
at SobekCM.Engine_Library.Solr.Solr_Controller.Update_Index(String SolrDocumentUrl, String SolrPageUrl, SobekCM_Item Resource, Boolean Include_Text) in C:\GitRepository\SobekCM-Web-Application\SobekCM_Engine_Library\Solr\Solr_Controller.cs:line 33
at SobekCM.Library.MySobekViewer.New_Group_And_Item_MySobekViewer.complete_item_submission(SobekCM_Item Item_To_Complete, Custom_Tracer Tracer) in C:\GitRepository\SobekCM-Web-Application\SobekCM_Library\MySobekViewer\New_Group_And_Item_MySobekViewer.cs:line 857