Building Dialogue

67 / 104

JUNE 2015 \ BUILDING DIALOGUE \ 67
D uring the reroofing portion of the South
Lowell affordable apartments renovation
in Denver, a stair tower began to wobble
beneath the affected roof decking. Fol-
lowing a quick suspension of work to maintain a
safe jobsite, structural engineers determined that
all 13 of the apartment’s stair towers were structur-
ally unsound and would have to be demolished.
This unforeseen condition meant that construc-
tion access to all second-floor apartments would be
lost indefinitely while architect Workshop8 conduct-
ed a major redesign to remedy the stair tower loss.
Most importantly, the budget for this renovation/ad-
dition would take a hit of almost $400,000 for the stair
tower fix.
This budget crisis was but one of many hurdles the
project teamhad to overcomewhileworking to create 96
units of affordable housing for under $10 million.
Starting with architect selection in 2009, the South
Lowell project was envisioned as a way to drastically im-
prove what owner Denver Housing Authority described
as “our worst property” – the structure was built in 1973
and desperately needed a full gut and renovation.
Also, DHA’s construction funding required that the
original building remain standing, and the number
of units be increased by almost 50 percent. This was
problematic on the constrained site within a subur-
ban neighborhood. During programming and early
schematic design, several scenarios were considered for
achieving the unit increase, but each came with a corre-
sponding, large negative.
Early in schematic design, the consensus solution
among owner, architect and engineers was to “pop the
top” of the existing structure to add a third story. While
the structural report confirmed the viability of this plan,
there was some nervousness that it posed too much of
a risk.
Instead, Pinkard proposed building a brand-new
structure inside the courtyard of the square-donut-
shaped facility. While a new building inside the court-
yard would meet DHA requirements for additional
units, the permitting and jurisdictional issues were huge.
So big, in fact, that everyone told the project team that it
couldn’t be done.
Following countless code reviews and 56 iterations of
building shapes and positions, the “building within a
building” concept was approved by all jurisdictional au-
thorities and ready for design development.
But now the project was almost 25 percent over budget.
Knowing that the project would not get into budget if
it were designed and built like a traditional apartment
with soffits and drop ceilings and cabinets, a new de-
sign with a minimalist or loft-style concept was born.
To achieve the minimalist look, the team launched a
massive collaborative effort that considered the cost,
function and aesthetic of every single line item in the
existing estimate, and substituted materials and designs
to fit the look.
For example, soffits are the most expensive part of in-
terior drywall. Eliminating the soffits provided the nec-
essary big budget savings, and the design was tweaked
just enough for modifications to ensure a nice, homey
Ned Foster
Proposal
Writer,
Pinkard
Construction