Developer David Friedman has offered some additional details about his plans for the transit-oriented development (TOD) a block south of the Central Park Rail Station on the land he recently purchased from Forest City. At the Stapleton Zoning and Planning meeting in September, Friedman shared the rendering and site plan shown above for The Village at Central Park Station—and said he hopes to begin construction of the mixed-use project in early 2018. Project components include:
- A 30,000-square-foot Sprouts grocery story.
- Two retail and personal service buildings totaling 12,000 square feet at the northeast corner of the site near the CPB and 36th Ave. intersection. Uses could include restaurants and personal service establishments like salons, a fitness center and dry cleaner.
- A five-story, 120-unit condominium project at the northwest corner of the parcel. Ten percent of the units would be affordable under the terms of Forest City’s development agreement with the city. The price of the market-rate units will range from the $200,000s up to $600,000. Most of the units would be one to two bedrooms. Resident and visitor parking would be located in a parking structure wrapped on three sides by the condominium units.
- Twelve condominium townhomes fronting Uinta Street. They would be two to three stories in height and separated from the Sprouts parking lot by a screening wall.
- Friedman said it is unusual to have a Sprouts building located mid-block and fronting on a major street, suggesting their acceptance of these constraints is a measure of the firm’s interest in locating in Stapleton. He said the site overall well exceeds the minimum city parking requirements.
For more information about the transit-oriented development at Central Park Station, visit FrontPorchNE.com and search for “TOD” to find articles in the July and August issues of the Front Porch.
“He said the site overall well exceeds the minimum city parking requirements.”
This is why this is specifically NOT TOD. TOD would require the area to have less than the minimum required parking. That way people would be inclined to use the transit. If people don’t want to use the transit, they can live in an area not so convenient to the walking.
Front Porch author John Fernandez responds to the comments about parking and the applicability of the term “transit-oriented development:”
TOD has become a convenient way to refer to development around a commuter rail station and was used more in the sense of a geographic locator than a judgment as to whether it satisfies the myriad qualities of place-making associated with a “true” TOD. In fact, the Front Porch asked the city of Denver this past summer whether the initial plans for the five-block area south of the station satisfy the vision for the site set forth in the Green Book and in the 2012 city-adopted station area plan. See our August issue and the article titled, “Central Park TOD Phase I Seeks to Create ‘Sense of Place.’ “ The city responded they were excited with the proposal for condos and apartments but didn’t respond directly to our question.
It might be useful to remember that the site plan in our October issue shows only the northern two-thirds of one block out of five blocks in the potential TOD south of the station. With only a small portion of the five-block area planned at this time, it is impossible to estimate what percent of the land will ultimately be parking. In any case, parking is always a major challenge in designing urban-scale development.
Overall, the densities here will be much higher than in Stapleton as a whole, with much of the site developed as mid-rise buildings (four to 10 stories) served by structured parking. The grid pattern and placing buildings at the street frontages are other key design choices in the effort to create an urban place. The developer is squeezed between what it might want to do versus what the tenants (e.g., Sprouts) might be demanding in terms of parking supply. It is always a difficult balancing act.
Over time, with the grid layout, there is the possibility of converting surface parking to structured parking if demand and land values can support this more expensive development. Quebec Square was criticized for its car-friendly layout when first proposed but was laid out in such a way that new buildings and parking structures can be placed within the grid as densification is economically justified. The same holds for the RTD-owned land adjacent to the station. Long-term plans for that land show how the large parking lots can be replaced with buildings and parking structures.
As plans for additional lots and blocks in this area get fleshed out, the Front Porch will continue to report on the characteristics of the proposed development relative to the city’s adopted plans for this “TOD.”
Just outrageous that this development got approved!!! It’s a total Waste of Space to have so much parking. It’s the antithesis of what the whole condensed neighborhood Stapleton is supposed foster. Not to mention the loss of property tax distribution. It’s just a mistake in every way. Who do we need to call to contest this terrible idea?
Does Sprouts border 35th on the south? Or is this mid-block? This parcel is not very large and the surface lot will be concealed from the street view.
I agree, not only could more of that space be used for mixed use development, but at such a high impact station building could and should be so much higher, like sprouts with several stories of condos on top of it, retail with several floors of offices on top of that and town homes or condos with a hotel or rental multifamily on top of that. If you need parking, build it into the 2nd and up stories of the pedestrian orientated ground floor buildings. I’d be surprised if developers didn’t think there was demand for this kind of activated mixed use. Is it Stapleton zoning that doesn’t allow denser development near the transit station?
Why is there so much parking at a “transit-oriented-development station”? It seems like it’s just a run-of-the-mill suburban-style development that happens to have a rail station?
How can you claim a place is TOD when it’s 80% parking by area?
I think you misspelled “parking-oriented-development”