DENVER | Main Development Thread #7 - Page 98

The Dirt · #**1941** Posted **Jan 11, 2018, 7:11 PM**

Quote:

The seller, Henry D. Lopez, purchased the property in March 1996 for $70,500, according to city records.

Clearly, white gentrifiers are pushing this poor man out. Where is councilman Espinoza on this?

mr1138 · #**1942** Posted **Jan 11, 2018, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Clearly, white gentrifiers are pushing this poor man out. Where is councilman Espinoza on this?

Not sure about Espinoza, but his buddy B-Rad Evans is already on it - complaining of course. This time that it should have been commercial space and not more "fugly" townhomes that do "nothing" for the neighborhood.

Agent Orange · #**1943** Posted **Jan 11, 2018, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr1138

Not sure about Espinoza, but his buddy B-Rad Evans is already on it - complaining of course. This time that it should have been retail and not more "fugly" townhomes that do "nothing" for the neighborhood.

Was the lot zoned for anything besides townhomes or SFH?

Speaking of this part of town, whenever I spend time in the Jeff Park/Sloans/West Colfax area I am astonished at the number of upscale townhouses recently or currently constructed. IANAUP, but it seems like a wasted opportunity due to overly conservative zoning. With its proximity to downtown, this would be a great area to achieve a more Cap Hill-esque density and diversity of housing type. With higher densities, it seems logical that displacement would happen much more slowly, too. Shame that this corner of town is on its way to exclusively housing upper income families. I'm not on the FUGLY bandwagon by any means, but I don't think these lego-house developments look great when there's no contrasting buildings around.

mr1138 · #**1944** Posted **Jan 11, 2018, 8:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Was the lot zoned for anything besides townhomes or SFH?

Speaking of this part of town, whenever I spend time in the Jeff Park/Sloans/West Colfax area I am astonished at the number of upscale townhouses recently or currently constructed. IANAUP, but it seems like a wasted opportunity due to overly conservative zoning. With its proximity to downtown, this would be a great area to achieve a more Cap Hill-esque density and diversity of housing type. With higher densities, it seems logical that displacement would happen much more slowly, too. Shame that this corner of town is on its way to exclusively housing upper income families. I'm not on the FUGLY bandwagon by any means, but I don't think these lego-house developments look great when there's no contrasting buildings around.

I actually think we're on the same page with this - I was about to say "no, MU zoning." But after doing a quick check on the Denver zoning map, the answer is in fact YES - it has main street zoning. So now I'm wondering if it's even legal to build rowhomes here - doesn't MS require ground-flood retail?

And I was being snarky with my first post, but in all seriousness, I too would like to see more retail integrated into our denser neighborhoods. This is, afterall, one half of the promise of density - that dense neighborhoods have services within walking distance. It would be interesting to have a sincere conversation about what exactly is causing this to be an issue in Denver. My friends who I visit often down near Speer and Downing are in a neighborhood that SHOULD be able to support plenty of neighborhood-scale retail, but end up driving for nearly every errand because there isn't even close to enough retail integrated into the neighborhood.

I, at first, blamed this on zoning. Anything in their neighborhood that isn't a historic corner store (these have MS zoning) has multi-unit residential zoning instead that won't allow for additional ground-floor retail.

But recently, I keep hearing that Denver actually has an excess of empty retail space (though perhaps just in the wrong locations - I don't know), and this results in the "active street-front" zoning requirement manifesting as sales offices and apartment community/workout rooms rather than retail space. So even when the zoning does allow or even encourage retail, we aren't always getting it. Bottom line - there seems to be a disconnect on a couple levels, and I'm not entirely sure how to explain it.

Edit: I actually really am curious now what the deal is with that lot. It is zoned G-MS-3. According to page 6.3-5 of the General Urban (G-) Neighborhood Context, allowable forms include Drive-Thru Services, Drive-Thru Restaurant, and Shopfront. How are they getting away with building townhomes here? Is the businessden article simply calling them "townhomes" when in fact it will be more of a mixed-use "shopfront" type structure??

Stonemans_rowJ · #**1945** Posted **Jan 11, 2018, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Was the lot zoned for anything besides townhomes or SFH?

Speaking of this part of town, whenever I spend time in the Jeff Park/Sloans/West Colfax area I am astonished at the number of upscale townhouses recently or currently constructed. IANAUP, but it seems like a wasted opportunity due to overly conservative zoning. With its proximity to downtown, this would be a great area to achieve a more Cap Hill-esque density and diversity of housing type. With higher densities, it seems logical that displacement would happen much more slowly, too. Shame that this corner of town is on its way to exclusively housing upper income families. I'm not on the FUGLY bandwagon by any means, but I don't think these lego-house developments look great when there's no contrasting buildings around.

Its hard to call this overly conservative when so much of Jefferson Park is Multi Unit 3 stories and so many other neighborhoods are predominantly single unit single family home zoning.

The homeowner got lucky his parcel was zoned that way because if it was single family zoning for instance on that road across from Safeway his land is worth maybe 300k

bunt_q · #**1946** Posted **Jan 11, 2018, 10:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr1138

I actually think we're on the same page with this - I was about to say "no, MU zoning." But after doing a quick check on the Denver zoning map, the answer is in fact YES - it has main street zoning. So now I'm wondering if it's even legal to build rowhomes here - doesn't MS require ground-flood retail?

And I was being snarky with my first post, but in all seriousness, I too would like to see more retail integrated into our denser neighborhoods. This is, afterall, one half of the promise of density - that dense neighborhoods have services within walking distance. It would be interesting to have a sincere conversation about what exactly is causing this to be an issue in Denver. My friends who I visit often down near Speer and Downing are in a neighborhood that SHOULD be able to support plenty of neighborhood-scale retail, but end up driving for nearly every errand because there isn't even close to enough retail integrated into the neighborhood.

I, at first, blamed this on zoning. Anything in their neighborhood that isn't a historic corner store (these have MS zoning) has multi-unit residential zoning instead that won't allow for additional ground-floor retail.

But recently, I keep hearing that Denver actually has an excess of empty retail space (though perhaps just in the wrong locations - I don't know), and this results in the "active street-front" zoning requirement manifesting as sales offices and apartment community/workout rooms rather than retail space. So even when the zoning does allow or even encourage retail, we aren't always getting it. Bottom line - there seems to be a disconnect on a couple levels, and I'm not entirely sure how to explain it.

Edit: I actually really am curious now what the deal is with that lot. It is zoned G-MS-3. According to page 6.3-5 of the General Urban (G-) Neighborhood Context, allowable forms include Drive-Thru Services, Drive-Thru Restaurant, and Shopfront. How are they getting away with building townhomes here? Is the businessden article simply calling them "townhomes" when in fact it will be more of a mixed-use "shopfront" type structure??

Because it actually takes a hell of a lot of human traffic to support retail. Either you need a boatload of residential density - which we do not have (certainly not at Downing and Speer) - or you need auto traffic, street frontage/visibility, and yes, parking. There's not a lot of in-between there. Retail is not an "amenity" - it's a business. And businesses need to be able to turn a profit to survive.

mr1138 · #**1947** Posted **Jan 11, 2018, 11:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Because it actually takes a hell of a lot of human traffic to support retail. Either you need a boatload of residential density - which we do not have (certainly not at Downing and Speer) - or you need auto traffic, street frontage/visibility, and yes, parking. There's not a lot of in-between there. Retail is not an "amenity" - it's a business. And businesses need to be able to turn a profit to survive.

Constructive, as usual. Thanks.

DenvertoLA · #**1948** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 2:34 AM**

Looks like Chipotle found its new home

https://crej.com/news/preleasing-new...chipotle-deal/

seventwenty · #**1949** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CREJ

Other [1144 Fifteenth] tenants that have preleased space at 1144 Fifteenth include Gates Corp., Greenberg Traurig LLP, Optiv Security and Unicom Capital. Most are relocating within the Denver market.

And WeWork. I'd forgotten that Gates was moving.

Fritzdude · #**1950** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 3:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Because it actually takes a hell of a lot of human traffic to support retail. Either you need a boatload of residential density - which we do not have (certainly not at Downing and Speer) - or you need auto traffic, street frontage/visibility, and yes, parking. There's not a lot of in-between there. Retail is not an "amenity" - it's a business. And businesses need to be able to turn a profit to survive.

Yes - I agree with your perspective. I own a retail store and I’ve been considering opening something in Denver that focuses on shoes and clothing. The rule of thumb is that rent should never be over 10% of gross sales. If I need 2K sqft’ - and the asking price is $38/sqft’ and CAM is $7 - that means I need to pay $90,000 in rent each year, which is $7,500 per month, This is before budgeting payroll and other overhead (utilities, insurance, etc).. Bottom line; I need to expect to sell > $75K in merchandise each month just to stay in the black. That’s a lot, especially in the days of Amazon when prices are devalued by internet shopping. So, if you want to know why retailers aren’t setting up shop in your neighborhood; the sky high lease rates are a huge factor.

If they were closer to $20sqft like they were 10 years ago, I would jump at it. But lease rates are prohibitively crazy.

TakeFive · #**1951** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventwenty

And WeWork. I'd forgotten that Gates was moving.

I get confused easily but I believe we had an updated conversation about We Work throwing their Letter of Intent for 1144 into the shit-can .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Yes - I agree with your perspective.

If they were closer to $20sqft like they were 10 years ago, I would jump at it. But lease rates are prohibitively crazy.

Makes sense to me.

TakeFive · #**1952** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 9:11 PM**

Friday Follies

If you're thinking of moving out-of-state you might want to quick-click on this map. If you're just a business traveler then you might enjoy this fun Bloomberg video/article about your hotel stay.

If you're into Denver Commercial RE growth then DBJ/CBRE has the 2017 review.

For the healthy water drinkers among us, you might enjoy this CBS4 video/report of this $100 million storage project.

A Friday cowboy hat tip to the Stock Show while we all anticipate the completion of the new National Western Center... Someday Soon

CastleScott · #**1953** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 10:12 PM**

Quote:

If you're thinking of moving out-of-state you might want to quick-click on this map. If you're just a business traveler then you might enjoy this fun Bloomberg video/article about your hotel stay

I gotta admit TakeFive Sacramento gotta be up there in the bug infested category as well-heck wife and I just had our home nuked for of all things chiggers!!

EngiNerd · #**1954** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 10:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Friday Follies

If you're thinking of moving out-of-state you might want to quick-click on this map. If you're just a business traveler then you might enjoy this fun Bloomberg video/article about your hotel stay.

If you're into Denver Commercial RE growth then DBJ/CBRE has the 2017 review.

For the healthy water drinkers among us, you might enjoy this CBS4 video/report of this $100 million storage project.

A Friday cowboy hat tip to the Stock Show while we all anticipate the completion of the new National Western Center... Someday Soon

Don't forget this massive $500 million 5-year project for Denver Water which is currently in progress...you can see the huge 7' pipes out by Applewood along the west side of I-70 if you drive out that way to the mountains.

https://www.denverwater.org/project-...system-renewal

Quote:

Denver Water is upgrading and modernizing the northern portion of our water system. We are building a new water treatment plant, installing a new pipeline and redeveloping our Moffat Treatment Plant site. When finished, the system will be more resilient and adaptable to changing demands for water now and into the future.

CastleScott · #**1955** Posted **Jan 12, 2018, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

For the healthy water drinkers among us, you might enjoy this CBS4 video/report of this $100 million storage project.

Ahh the good ole water issue, I remember sometime back around 2009-2011 the Denver Water Board and several front range water boards where trying to come to an agreement on a huge plan that would have rivaled FasTracks in cost (est around 8 billion!). Since a lot of water rights were sold off to downstream interests the so-called Big Straw was just briefly mentioned in the Post-it would have included twin pipelines to the Missouri River just south of Omaha and the other to the Mississippi River just south of St Louis and would have included pumping stations and water plants in central Nebraska and Kansas plus a yuge plant where both pipelines would meet near Bennett east of DIA. Denver Water and the others never came to an agreement on this..