DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Oh oh; Stonemans_rowJ was correct: Severe is Here

So is a correction coming? Bad time to buy? Bubble about to burst? People have been screaming about the "severe" price increases for years now and yet, up they go!

[TakeFive]

Someday Soon



CONative says MOO

Photos by Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite

Denver leaders break out cowboy hats for Legacy Building unveiling
December 12, 2017 by Adrian D. Garcia - Denverite

The Western Stock Show Association hopes to raise $100 million for a new “home to all members of the National Western family” and three other facilities in north Denver.

Stock show goers got a first glimpse of the Legacy Building on Tuesday when a replica of the four-story, more than 100,000-square-foot building was unveiled by the association. The building is set to feature seating room for up to 700 people and space to store and display National Western art, archives and history.

Denver wouldn't be what it is without a good cattle call. Hee Haw

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Someday Soon

I'll be interested to see how they integrate this Western Center with the rest of the Brighton redevelopment going on and whether there will a promenade leading into this area from the RiNo Platte river improvements that are planned to take place. It would be nice to be able to have a well maintained walking environment from Confluence all the way down to this Western Center. It's currently sketchy in parts (with no lighting) and debris everywhere, but there is so much potential to have a parks style attraction for the community to enjoy the water.

[wong21fr]

Interesting article on mandate ground-floor retail in every single development:

https://www.bisnow.com/san-francisco...82631?rt=51844

There's a reason that most of the stuff that's gone up in Arapahoe Square doesn't have retail- it doesn't make a ton of sense as the population add of each development isn't enough to justify each building having retail. I'd prefer that we try to emphasize retail nodes in AS, such as what is developing on 22nd between California and Welton, versus getting 3-4 blocks of 3/4's empty storefronts.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Interesting article on mandate ground-floor retail in every single development:

https://www.bisnow.com/san-francisco...82631?rt=51844

There's a reason that most of the stuff that's gone up in Arapahoe Square doesn't have retail- it doesn't make a ton of sense as the population add of each development isn't enough to justify each building having retail. I'd prefer that we try to emphasize retail nodes in AS, such as what is developing on 22nd between California and Welton, versus getting 3-4 blocks of 3/4's empty storefronts.

Cities are starting to reconsider how they approve mixed-use development and some are thinking of charging a fee to building owners with spaces that remain vacant too long. But there is no easy fix, Firstenberg said.

So cities/planners encourage ground floor retail on most new project, and now the cities are going to punish the developers when they can't fill them? What?

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

So cities/planners encourage ground floor retail on most new project, and now the cities are going to punish the developers when they can't fill them? What?

No, city requirements (at least in Denver) require an engaging ground-floor, through high transparency, architectural interest, and other means--as well as retail, where it makes sense.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

So cities/planners encourage ground floor retail on most new project, and now the cities are going to punish the developers when they can't fill them? What?

Oh yeah, that part was simply inane and shows some planner's total disconnect from economic reality. Also, it ultimately punishes residents because if you have to bake in a new, ongoing, cost in your model it's going to result in figuring out how to pass on the cost to residents. Which is going to result in higher lease rates and sales prices.

[mhays]

Exactly right. In cities like mine, they're reqiring that retail be diffused onto too many streets (weakening the best retail areas) and creating a lot of vacant retail, and residents subsidize all of it.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Interesting article on mandate ground-floor retail in every single development:

https://www.bisnow.com/san-francisco...82631?rt=51844

That article is soo good on many levels.

First it shows the bad results of well intended interest groups that decide in their minds what would be walkable nifty, for example, w/o considering what what retailers need and want. Since it's not their own hard earned money that's on the line they just assume it will work bcuz they want it to work.

“We’re trying to get cities to understand retail is not like other categories,” Firstenberg said. “It’s not if you build it they will come.”

Consider that the world is not the "happy place" it once was. As they point out while a transit stop might seem like an ideal spot in fact it's not if would-be shoppers feel less secure. If half your inventory walks out the door w/o payment how's the retailer supposed to survive?

I sense an increasing intrusion from various interest groups to impose their utopian ideas on Denver. While I think activism can be a good thing people have to be willing to think through things and ask frequently: "What could go wrong" if we get what we want?" (But they don't)

[jbssfelix]

I never understood why planners are so keen on making policy with a stick vs a carrot. If you make 1st-floor retail less risky (through subsidies, lower-interest and/or guaranteed funding, a network to help connect expanding business owners to new development, etc etc), developers would naturally be more inclined to build ground-floor retail establishments in their projects.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

No, city requirements (at least in Denver) require an engaging ground-floor, through high transparency, architectural interest, and other means--as well as retail, where it makes sense.

That does make sense, this is more meant for the armchair architects (the DI, Denver Fugly crowd) who's vision of what makes a city is so detached from reality that one wonders just where their frontal cranium reduction was performed at- probably in CU's Humanities or Ethnic Studies Departments.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Exactly right. In cities like mine, they're reqiring that retail be diffused onto too many streets (weakening the best retail areas) and creating a lot of vacant retail, and residents subsidize all of it.

Nah, it might not be good policy but suggesting the costs gets passed onto tenants I'll never buy anymore than the argument for less parking means adding (lots of) of parking to a development get passed onto tenants and raises the overall cost of rent.

Landlords live by the rule of supply/demand and will charge whatever the market will bear - in theory nothing less or more than what the demand is willing to pay.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Nah, it might not be good policy but suggesting the costs gets passed onto tenants I'll never buy anymore than the argument for less parking means adding (lots of) of parking to a development get passed onto tenants and raises the overall cost of rent.

Landlords live by the rule of supply/demand and will charge whatever the market will bear - in theory nothing less or more than what the demand is willing to pay.

They do so, but every development has an economic model and an increased cost will need to be offset be an increased revenue variable to keep the IRR within acceptable parameters or the project ain't going to happen. It does get passed on to the market and it makes the supply curve a little steeper.

This doesn't change:

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

They do so, but every development has an economic model and an increased cost will need to be offset be an increased revenue variable to keep the IRR within acceptable parameters or the project ain't going to happen. It does get passed on to the market and it makes the supply curve a little steeper.

This doesn't change:

Oh, I'll agree the costs impacts the project feasibility analysis. But that IRR return is based on what rents they project they can get. What ultimately happens is strictly a market function/response. I'd also agree that w/o parking the rents they'd need to make the project feasible would be less. It comes down to what lenders/equity investors feel is necessary in order to be interested. Perhaps in time they'll back off the necessity for so much parking.

Another way to look at it is what would a subsequent buyer be willing to pay. He's not the least concerned with development costs; rather he's concerned only with the current (and projected) market return ie it's a market function.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

That looks really FLW-y to me. Hope it keeps that look when they build it.

[trubador]

so if we did retail corridor(s) in Arapahoe Square, where are the best locations, beside Welton, which I think already is a retail corridor? Does 20th make sense or does it have too much traffic? What about Larimer? It seems like the best options are on the edges of Arapahoe Square.

[CastleScott]

That looks really FLW-y to me. Hope it keeps that look when they build it.

^ I really like it too-has that Colorado look-oh btw maybe include a large green CSU sign for some interesting contrast.

[Matt]

[DenverPoke]

^^great shot. 1144 15th really does look totally different from each angle. Great design! Too bad 4 Seasons went cheap on the crown, could've been so unique to Denver.

[lumos]

Thanks so much for the great picture. I am so proud of 1144.