DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[BG918]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

As in more realistic and likely to get built? Yuuuup.

Trimmed the fat and made some design concessions in order to keep to the development budget. It's frustrating, but necessary.

Still looks good to me. What's the ghosted building to the north, future phase?

[twister244]

^^^^^^^

I'm assuming that's the still unnamed hotel component they will be building.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by BG918

Still looks good to me. What's the ghosted building to the north, future phase?

Sort of reminds me of this Denver classic:

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by twister244

^^^^^^^

I'm assuming that's the still unnamed hotel component they will be building.

I think that the hotel is the portion of the building above the parking podium. I believe the transparent building is a future office phase.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I just noticed the mural on what we think might be the hotel portion. Cool

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I think that the hotel is the portion of the building above the parking podium. I believe the transparent building is a future office phase.

Except it don't look they'll have a parking podium; they're going to build one of them thar separated parking garages.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n..._news_headline

In terms of design, the developers decided to go with a separate parking garage as opposed to underground parking to save time on the project. Campbell estimates that when construction starts later this year, it will take about 18 months to complete. Underground parking would have added about six months of construction time and more cost to the project, which is now estimated at about $300 million total.

AFAIK this is in reference to the hotel.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Except it don't look they'll have a parking podium; they're going to build one of them thar separated parking garages.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n..._news_headline

AFAIK this is in reference to the hotel.

Than the hotel adjacent to the garage. The project always had one of them thar fancy parking garages, looks like the hotel was either set on it or next to it, but now it's a bigger above-ground garage instead of a smaller one with an underground component as well.

[CherryCreek]

Interesting urban area walk-ability study that puts Denver No. 2 on the list after NYC.

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resou...ic-ahead-2019/
Before everyone groans that that's nuts, i'd note the study is focused much more narrowly than typical walk-ability ratings/studies.

Key economic findings
Based on the share of office, retail, and rental multi-family occupied square footage in WalkUPs relative to the metro region as a whole, the top regions are 1) New York City, 2) Denver, 3) Boston, 4) Washington, DC, 5) San Francisco Bay Area, and 6) Chicago.

Drivable sub-urban real estate products have been losing market share to walkable urban real estate products in all 30 metros. In some metros, walkable urban places have accounted for almost 100 percent of net new office and rental multi-family space while drivable sub-urban places have added no new space or lost occupancy since 2010.

This report indicates that the highest-ranked walkable urban metros are models for the future development patterns of many U.S. metros. Conversely, metros such as Tampa, Orlando, and Phoenix have an uphill climb to create walkable places. However, these low-ranking metros have also demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to change by continuing to promote drivable sub-urban sprawl through public policy and infrastructure investments.

It should be noted that this analysis specifically examines office, retail, and multi-family income-producing properties, and does not include single-family for-sale homes, which are a primary driver of sprawling development. Drivable sub-urbanism, i.e. sprawl, is and has been systematically subsidized by federal, state, and local governments for more than half a century. This leads to the question of whether drivable sub-urban development patterns should continue to be subsidized, especially when the commercial real estate market is increasingly demanding walkable urbanism.

From what I can tell, Denver comes in so high because of the concentration of office space downtown and the huge amounts of multi-family housing that has been built within walking distance of downtown - i.e., "urban walk-ability."

Obviously, many of the older cities listed below Denver have much larger areas with walk-able neighborhoods, but the study is focused on the walk-ability of the core urban area, not on neighborhoods per se.

Makes for an interesting read.

[wong21fr]

Tower crane going up at 3463 Walnut.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Makes for an interesting read.

Not really; well maybe since it's so kind to Denver. Consider the source and the parameters. If you live in any nice neighborhood that doesn't have a few office building skyscrapers in the center then you're a loser.

This is nothing more than an anti-car, urbanist, classic downtown focused self adulation. Since it's specifically set up to exclude most anything outside of downtown it succeeds with it's self-defined but limited goal.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Interesting urban area walk-ability study that puts Denver No. 2 on the list after NYC.

Obviously, many of the older cities listed below Denver have much larger areas with walk-able neighborhoods, but the study is focused on the walk-ability of the core urban area, not on neighborhoods per se.

It's easy enough to understand why Denver scores so well as you suggest. The core of downtown has always been compact; essentially between 14th and 19th streets. The intense growth of lots of residential on the edges becoming part of an urban center fits the given parameters to a T.

It's a given that following the Great Recession there has been a millennial-driven migration to urban centers ie downtown's.

Is the migration to classic downtown urban centers a good thing?

Yes I believe it is. It brings more balance to existing metro areas. There are specific benefits to density in general; in traditional cities with a prominent downtown it is understandably the area of focused growth.

Some of the other points are pretty weak but follow from their limited view.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

For millennials with smallish down payments these 500' units would be $3,500+ a month when they can rent these things all day long for $2,000/mo in better locations.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

It should be noted that this analysis specifically examines office, retail, and multi-family income-producing properties, and does not include single-family for-sale homes, which are a primary driver of sprawling development. Drivable sub-urbanism, i.e. sprawl, is and has been systematically subsidized by federal, state, and local governments for more than half a century. This leads to the question of whether drivable sub-urban development patterns should continue to be subsidized, especially when the commercial real estate market is increasingly demanding walkable urbanism.[/I]

The term subsidy or subsidies are generally misunderstood, misused and abused. Government expenditures (or subsidies) are merely the collective revenue of taxpayer/voter-approved allocations for the benefit of the greater, common good. It's not unusual to hear general references that conflate federal with state with city spending.

The answer is that government subsidies or expenditures should continue to be allocated according to taxpayer-voter preferences.

For example and specific to the City of Denver, voters last November exercised their preferences on a number of issues that added up to over $900 million in extra city investments.

Confusion and distortion at the federal level are used by both ends of the political spectrum.

For example under GWB, accelerated depreciation (actually depletion) was enacted as an incentive to the oil & gas industry. Some bemoan this 'artificial' lowering of gas prices as a bad thing. They're wrong and fail to understand how the system worked. It stimulated the whole fracking revolution that allowed market pricing to drop over time. I assume that 85% of the population much prefers lower to higher gas prices.

Flip the script
Under Obama generous incentives were enacted to promote renewable energy. This drove an entire industry to innovate leading to a lowering of costs over time. The reason that Xcel energy is now aggressively planning to replace coal burners with renewable energy is that costs have virtually been cut in half since incentives were enacted.

As for Federal Grants, they're generally allocated for the benefit and request of (primarily) state needs and preferences.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Tower crane going up at 3463 Walnut.

I totally missed that this was even under construction..... wow.

[rds70]

A couple of development related items:

The building permit has been submitted for the Hyatt Centric Hotel at 18th and Curtis - 14 stories and 263 rooms.

A new concept plan submittal for Belleview Station - the site is directly north of the platform:

Phase I, 17-story 476,000 sqft office building with approx. 10,000sqft of ground floor retail and 1393 parking spaces. Phase II, 17-story 284,000sqft apartment building with an additional 16,000sqft of ground floor retail.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by rds70

A couple of development related items:

The building permit has been submitted for the Hyatt Centric Hotel at 18th and Curtis - 14 stories and 263 rooms.

A new concept plan submittal for Belleview Station - the site is directly north of the platform:

That is exciting, especially for the Belleview station. Maybe people will start commuting to and from DTC via light rail in greater numbers.

[TakeFive]

'Game-changing' development planned in RiNo after $86M land sale
Jun 27, 2019 By Andrew Dodson – Reporter, Denver Business Journal

Fresh off its partnership to co-develop the new World Trade Center Denver, a Chicago-based real estate investment and development firm, along with its Denver-based counterpart, purchased 13 acres of prime real estate in the River North Art District with plans to create a mixed-use development that celebrates the site’s history.

Golub & Co. and Denver-based Formativ, along with an unnamed institutional investor, purchased 13 acres of land at the 32-acre Denargo Market development for $86 million, according to public records.

A statement from the top, CEO Michael Newman of Golub.

“This acquisition in one of Denver’s most sought-after submarkets will be the centerpiece of our portfolio in the Western U.S. and reinforces the long-term commitment we made when we established our Denver office in 2018,” Michael Newman, president and chief executive officer of Golub, said in a statement.

I wonder, should I do that dance I suggested if I had known about Golub setting up a Denver office?

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The term subsidy or subsidies are generally misunderstood, misused and abused. Government expenditures (or subsidies) are merely the collective revenue of taxpayer/voter-approved allocations for the benefit of the greater, common good. It's not unusual to hear general references that conflate federal with state with city spending.

The answer is that government subsidies or expenditures should continue to be allocated according to taxpayer-voter preferences.

For example and specific to the City of Denver, voters last November exercised their preferences on a number of issues that added up to over $900 million in extra city investments.

Confusion and distortion at the federal level are used by both ends of the political spectrum.

For example under GWB, accelerated depreciation (actually depletion) was enacted as an incentive to the oil & gas industry. Some bemoan this 'artificial' lowering of gas prices as a bad thing. They're wrong and fail to understand how the system worked. It stimulated the whole fracking revolution that allowed market pricing to drop over time. I assume that 85% of the population much prefers lower to higher gas prices.

Flip the script
Under Obama generous incentives were enacted to promote renewable energy. This drove an entire industry to innovate leading to a lowering of costs over time. The reason that Xcel energy is now aggressively planning to replace coal burners with renewable energy is that costs have virtually been cut in half since incentives were enacted.

As for Federal Grants, they're generally allocated for the benefit and request of (primarily) state needs and preferences.

All lower gasoline prices has achieved is a lower transit share, a slower transition to electric and/or hydrogen powered cars, environmental harm from fracking and greater fossil fuel consumption resulting in more rapid climate change. If 85% of the population prefers this, I am ashamed to be a member of the human race. I would hope it was at least more of a 50/50 split on the issue.

[jo_ba]

.

[Denvergotback]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

All lower gasoline prices has achieved is a lower transit share, a slower transition to electric and/or hydrogen powered cars, environmental harm from fracking and greater fossil fuel consumption resulting in more rapid climate change. If 85% of the population prefers this, I am ashamed to be a member of the human race. I would hope it was at least more of a 50/50 split on the issue.

I don't think its something we should be ashamed with, to be a part of the human race.... We have only had this technology for 100-150 years, and look how far we have come. It's a learning curve we have to overcome but it does come. It's impossible to expect all 7 billion people on the planet to suddenly change their minds and opinions, it does take time. I think we will eventually (mostly) get it right, where we build more dense cities, not just for convenience and preference, but also to not destroy habitat and resources. I think the time will come when we finally start converting to electric cars for more than just a desire to... For as long as the earth has been around we have just barely discovered technology and etc pretty darn fast, so a few hundred years is what it might take for us to finally get everyone to understand the effects and benefits and such. Unfortunately, just like with any learning curve, there will be mistakes along the way, ones we wish we could undo... So instead of being ashamed of what has happened thus far, lets just try not to make so many mistakes going forward and figure out how to help this planet and species...

on another note, wow, I move away and suddenly a slew of cool buildings starts appearing... Go figure!

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

I don't think its something we should be ashamed with, to be a part of the human race.... We have only had this technology for 100-150 years, and look how far we have come. It's a learning curve we have to overcome but it does come. It's impossible to expect all 7 billion people on the planet to suddenly change their minds and opinions, it does take time. I think we will eventually (mostly) get it right, where we build more dense cities, not just for convenience and preference, but also to not destroy habitat and resources. I think the time will come when we finally start converting to electric cars for more than just a desire to... For as long as the earth has been around we have just barely discovered technology and etc pretty darn fast, so a few hundred years is what it might take for us to finally get everyone to understand the effects and benefits and such. Unfortunately, just like with any learning curve, there will be mistakes along the way, ones we wish we could undo... So instead of being ashamed of what has happened thus far, lets just try not to make so many mistakes going forward and figure out how to help this planet and species...

on another note, wow, I move away and suddenly a slew of cool buildings starts appearing... Go figure!

True and valid point. However, the data is strongly suggesting that we only have 5-10 years to nearly eliminate fossil fuel consumption on a global scale, before we reach a tipping point where climate change will occur more rapidly than a majority of species alive will be able to evolve and adapt to it. We have been aware of this since the mid to late 1970's. We're passing the 40 year mark for our learning curve and the 50 year mark may well be to little, to late. If the scientifically validated data isn't enough, what will be enough? Nothing except the facts can persuade my opinion, yet the facts are not persuading everyone's opinions? How about personal observations? Most of us have been alive long enough to have observed the changes in the climate. Yet this is not persuading everyone's opinions? What will it take to get everyone onboard? Is it greed that is blinding us? There are billions of dollars of oil left in the ground to convert into wealth. Is it just to hard to let it all go?