HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1941  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 2:53 PM
mojiferous mojiferous is offline
Landbarge Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 362
In a long forum history of nit-picking, whiny complaints about Denver architecture, this is by far the dumbest and most petty.
__________________
Mojferous Industries
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1942  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 3:38 PM
seventwenty's Avatar
seventwenty seventwenty is offline
Cirrus. Meaner than bunt.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Fake mod clubhouse and banned
Posts: 1,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojiferous View Post
In a long forum history of nit-picking, whiny complaints about Denver architecture, this is by far the dumbest and most petty.
Nah. We can be pettier and you know it.
__________________
The happy & obtuse bro.

"Of course you're right." Cirrus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1943  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 8:11 PM
mojiferous mojiferous is offline
Landbarge Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventwenty View Post
Nah. We can be pettier and you know it.
lol... 'Tis true - I can't wait for the day we finally get a new tallest and someone complains that it is a few feet shorter than some arbitrary building in some arbitrary place.
__________________
Mojferous Industries
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1944  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 8:26 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 12,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojiferous View Post
lol... 'Tis true - I can't wait for the day we finally get a new tallest and someone complains that it is a few feet shorter than some arbitrary building in some arbitrary place.
Well. When this finally happens, the building will undoubtedly be beige. And there will be widespread forum uproar. And we will have to face the great existential question - can a 90-story building even be "Colotecture"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1945  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 10:17 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,613
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1946  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2018, 10:51 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Yes.
And she's beautiful.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1947  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 1:28 AM
COS COS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 58
I find it odd that 4S residents feel it's worth their time to stop external/crown lighting on a building when they could spend a couple dollars on blackout curtains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1948  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 4:18 PM
BG918's Avatar
BG918 BG918 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,726
More townhomes coming to Jeff Park, and another windfall profit for longtime property owner. Bought in 1996 for $70,500 and just sold for $1.05 million (0.2 acre property with a crappy 852 SF house). Nearly $1 million profit in 22 years! And some people don't think we're in a real estate bubble..

https://businessden.com/2018/01/11/t...-park-safeway/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1949  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 7:11 PM
The Dirt's Avatar
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Ground Scraper
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,803
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?
__________________
"That emoticon is the most foolish thing you have posted in this whole thread full of foolish statements." - Cirrus
"When white people move out of a neighborhood, it's called white flight and it's racist. When white people move back to a neighborhood, it's called gentrification and it's racist. So, white people should just never move." - internet comment
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1950  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 7:23 PM
mr1138 mr1138 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dirt View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1951  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 7:36 PM
Agent Orange Agent Orange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr1138 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1952  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 8:06 PM
mr1138 mr1138 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Orange View Post
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??

Last edited by mr1138; Jan 11, 2018 at 8:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1953  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 9:42 PM
Stonemans_rowJ's Avatar
Stonemans_rowJ Stonemans_rowJ is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Lodo
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Orange View Post
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
__________________
Jeff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1954  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 10:51 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 12,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr1138 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1955  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2018, 11:51 PM
mr1138 mr1138 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1956  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 2:34 AM
DenvertoLA DenvertoLA is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 90
Looks like Chipotle found its new home

https://crej.com/news/preleasing-new...chipotle-deal/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1957  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 2:45 AM
seventwenty's Avatar
seventwenty seventwenty is offline
Cirrus. Meaner than bunt.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Fake mod clubhouse and banned
Posts: 1,634
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.
__________________
The happy & obtuse bro.

"Of course you're right." Cirrus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1958  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 3:21 AM
Fritzdude Fritzdude is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1959  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 3:57 AM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventwenty View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1960  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2018, 9:11 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,637
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
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:51 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.