Denver Development Thread (4)

[Lorax3000]

Originally Posted by Octavian

New slides from the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority. here and here

Synopsis:

Five technologies are under study: Diesel 79 mph, Diesel 110, Maglev 125, Electric Locomotive 150, EMU 220 and Maglev 300.

Two alignments for each corridor are under study: I-25 using the CML, I-25 unconstrained, I-70 ROW (7% grade), and I-70 unconstrained (4% grade).

The study evaluates alternatives against Federal Railroad Administration economic criteria. The FRA criteria require an operating profit (no operational subsidy), and a benefit/cost ratio greater than 1. Benefits were defined as revenue, consumer surplus and resource savings. Costs included operating costs and capital costs. Much depends on your estimate of these variables.

Higher speeds generate more revenue and ridership. The 79 mph diesel alternative was eliminated because ridership is too low to cover operating costs (too many empty passenger miles). Maglev generates more ridership and more operating revenue, but its capital costs are enormous (over $30 billion for both corridors). Maglev 125 is eliminated from further consideration. The EMU 220 alternative best balances operating cost, capital cost, and ridership. Market share for this alternative is estimated to be about 11%.

Ridership north of Ft. Collins, south of Pueblo or West of Avon (Grand Junction, Aspen, Glenwood Springs, Steamboat) does not justify service. Service to New Mexico was outside of the scope of the study. The corridors were truncated as follows:

DIA to Eagle Airport
Ft. Collins to Pueblo

Though nothing is decided in a feasibility study, the alternative recommended for detailed analysis is the EMU 220 for both the I-70 and I-25 corridors. The preferred alignments for EMU 220 service are along the I-70 alignment (the 7% grade alignment), and a new unconstrained alignment along I-25. West of Eagle Airport, it may also be possible to have diesel service on existing track using a 110 mph hour technology.

Revenue is maximized at approximately 20 to 30 cents a mile. Using the distance along I-70 alignment as an estimate, a ticket between DIA and Vail would cost between $25 and $36. Proposed train frequencies are 30 trains per day along I-70 and 24 per day along I-25.

Estimated travel time:

DIA to Vail: 2 hr 10 min
DIA to Downtown Denver: 13 min
Denver to Vail: 1 hr 57 min
Denver to Ft. Collins: 42 min
Denver to Colorado Springs: 44 min
Denver to Pueblo: 1 hr 11 min

Total cost is estimated at $21.1 billion.

So is there a possibility for the Maglev 300?

[UrbanT]

Originally Posted by escodu05

i was just thinking how cool it would be if the cottrells bldg was turned into a flagship urban outfitters.. it may make sense if forever21 is expanding into the virgin space as a flagship and adding their mens line. these two companies always seem to be close to each other, and it would finally give us a couple of flagship 'smaller' retailers that can create a nucleus of other 'hip' companies..

such a thing would stimulate retail growth and hopefully spill over into the california bldg..

Yes! that would be amazing. . . .I mean there is a fairly big forever 21 in Cherry Creek and yet the company feels confident in expanding their downtown store.... Im hoping that other companies will take notice and the expansion will be a catalyst for change in Denvers downtown retail environment.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by UrbanT

Yes! that would be amazing. . . .I mean there is a fairly big forever 21 in Cherry Creek and yet the company feels confident in expanding their downtown store.... Im hoping that other companies will take notice and the expansion will be a catalyst for change in Denvers downtown retail environment.

I know of two retailers who are looking to build flagships Downtown.... they're having trouble finding suitable existing space right now.

I can't say who (I was told in confidence)... they both have a big presence in Cherry Creek right now tho.

[UrbanSky]

I also know of a new concept department store that is coming downtown. It will actually be more like a market, with all high-end, local retailers under one roof. Can't divulge the location yet, but the funding is there and it will be moving forward.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by enjo13

I know of two retailers who are looking to build flagships Downtown.... they're having trouble finding suitable existing space right now.

I can't say who (I was told in confidence)... they both have a big presence in Cherry Creek right now tho.

Urban Outfitters and..... something. I dunno, Puma.

[Cos_Denver]

1800 larimar is getting a additional highrise crane. Look at the web site

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by Cos_Denver

1800 larimar is getting a additional highrise crane. Look at the web site

I wonder if the cost to rent one of those went WAY down recently?

I was wondering what they were doing.. they Larimer shut down to one lane and a bunch of big pieces. I thought they where getting ready to jump the thing to epic heights

[bcp]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

But it woudln't just be the developer's burden, because people who don't have sufficient parking in their apartment complex would spill out onto the street and even those who have nothing to do with that development will not be able to find a spot. That puts a burden on everyone because it eliminates street parking for those who need it.

I live in a house where only street parking is available. I live across the street from an elementary school with no parking lot. It is really awful trying to park between 8am and 3pm on any weekday when the entire block is packed with the cars of the teachers, as well as parents visiting the school or picking up kids - I have to walk 4 blocks just to get to my house if I come home during school hours. It's not fun.

The city didn't require parking for the school because it is a really, really old building and probably existed before the neighborhood and before those kinds of ordinances were thought of. I'd say the building is at least 80 years old.

But say everything was working here until some private developer put an apartment complex where the school was, and people needed to park year-round there - not just during school hours but day and night, summer and winter. I would NOT be happy, as a resident, when suddenly parking four blocks away is a constant necessity. If they're low-end apartments people would probably rent first worry about parking second, so the developer woudln't even feel the burn. But try walking a few blocks with 4 bags of groceries. Try bringing new furniture home, or moving in with boxes and furniture when you have to carry them around the block. That's probably the reason cities have ordinances requiring that new developments contain enough parking.

I hate parking lots as much as you, but you've gotta understand that we have to get people to forgo cars before we can forgo parking.

some good arguments but a choice has to be made:

A) on one hand you can have ample on-street and off-street parking, based on mandates, but it comes with lower density, less retail and less affordability (sale or rentals).

OR

B) we can have lower parking requirements, higher density, retail that actually thrives, more affordability but sometimes you have to walk further or pay extra for off-street parking.

blended models are proposed all the time - but they just result in added beuracracy and only exist because most public officials dont have the moxy to tell grandma "tough it out - sometimes you have to walk a block or two to park your car".

there just isnt a single GREAT city in the world that has easy and inexpensive parking for all. can anybody name one? Denver isn't great YET, but if we over-prioritize the automobile we will never get there on a grand scale, just in small pockets.

[Pizzuti]

I think its safe to completely get rid of parking requirements for new construction in all of central downtown, especially the immediate area surrounding the 16th Street Mall. Most people who visit there do not rely on street parking because it's so full anyway, and transit is very accessible. Eliminating the requirement would be like ripping off a band-aid - painful at first, but successful once people adjusted.

I also think it's safe to get rid of parking requirements for all new office buildings Downtown and surrounding. While you may still need to park a car where you live, you don't necessarily need that car to get to work, and if you get a job in an office building downtown you are not going to be so discouraged by a lack of parking that you quit that job. In that case the need to get to work it's compelling enough to get people to turn to transit when parking isn't available.

But for now, it's still reasonable to require developers to have enough parking for resiential projects outside downtown in other central neighborhoods. People who own a car need somewhere to put it even if they choose not to drive it to work. The transit there is less efficient, and most people will still own a car and we can't expect them to get rid of it when we still have so far to go making the city completely accessible (efficiently) with transit. And like I pointed out, when the need for parking spills out onto the street, it affects other residents and also impacts the pedestrian experience.

I'm for back alley parking in mixed residential neighborhoods with some single-family homes and some apartment buildings. I wouldn't mind an ordinance requiring parking access to be from the back, but if that is too much "government control" then we should just put public pressure on developers to do it. In neighorhoods of slightly higher density, I'm for parking areas concealed inside the development or underground. Essentially hide the cars to make the neighborhood more pedestrian-friendly, but do that by providing enough parking for them so they don't need to line the streets.

The urban utopia would be completely transit-oriented with a streetcar system and completely efficient light rail, but that's a long way off. For now there's a hierarchy; garage parking is better than surface parking, underground parking or concealed parking is better than garage parking, and a completely transit-oriented building is best of all. But I think we're going to have to evolve through those steps rather than bridge the gap all at once.

[Paulopolis]

I don't know if you any of you made it down to the Denver Green Festival at the Convention Center. I was there yesterday and today. Anyway, there were 3 really awesome-looking renderings for the Alliance Center for Sustainability's expansion next to the Colorado Saddlery Bldg on Wynkoop. There was also a lot more information with conceptual drawings for the new UCD College of Architecture and Planning building. Two of the concepts had it being constructed over Speer at about Lawrence. Very cool stuff.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by enjo13

I know of two retailers who are looking to build flagships Downtown.... they're having trouble finding suitable existing space right now.

I can't say who (I was told in confidence)... they both have a big presence in Cherry Creek right now tho.

I will also go with Urban Outfitters. But I think the second will be Anthropologie.

This is a problem DT, lack of large scale retail space (I'm not talking about a department store but something akin to the new flagship Forever 21). Besides the Pavillions the options are pretty limited. The Tabor Center could do one on the ground floor by combining the entire frontage, but stuff shrinks up pretty fast after that. Since developers took a lot of the larger retail sites and subdivided them, such as at the Denver Dry and the Sage Building, DT is stuck with a lack of suitable space.

Gart Properties needs to purchase the Cottrell's building and combine it with a new, or seriously, seriously remodeled, California Mall to provide a couple of additional large scale retail sites along the upper side of the 16 St Mall provide a contrast to the Pavillions.

[escodu05]

i could see jcrew trying to get a spot in pavilions or with frontage on the mall to compete with banana and gap..

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Gart Properties needs to purchase the Cottrell's building and combine it with a new, or seriously, seriously remodeled, California Mall to provide a couple of additional large scale retail sites along the upper side of the 16 St Mall provide a contrast to the Pavillions.

This is why the idea of moving the mall shuttles on to 17th/15th makes so much sense. There is a LOT of viable building space along 15th which would allow these sorts of projects to be much more sanely served. The mall is a chokepoint for Downtown development from what I can tell. You can solve so many issues with dedicated RTD lanes along 15th/17th.

[Scottk]

I remember when Abercrombie was looking at a two story flagship on sixteenth. That would have been fantastic for the mall if that project had gone through...

[Pizzuti]

I won't complain about any new retail that goes in Downtown but I think what we really need is something that appeals to a more general population. Our goal isn't to make Denver elite and fashonable, it's to make it useful and human-oriented. We should really be rooting for somewhere that all of us shop at a regular basis.

Think about a suburban mall, and the difference between the anchor store and everything else in the mall. The anchor store is valuable because it so big and appeals a broad population, bringing people in to feed the mall, hence its label as "anchor." A few of the people who visit the anchor stores will walk through the mall and stop at smaller stores and the snack places, which appeal to niche populations and wouldn't be able to bring in the crowds on their own.

Urban Outfitters is great for teenagers, college students, and young hip adults. Everyone else is going to consider it overpriced, and the market it appeals to are young attractive people who like wearing tight, up-to-date edgy clothing they can go out in (but wouldn't wear to work). That's why it could never be an anchor store, no matter how big you make it.

I think we could use a Sears, Macy's, Kohls or a Dillards. That's what makes Downtown a convenient place for pretty much anyone to shop rather than just a destination for young fashionable suburban kids looking to go to Abercrombie and Fitch or Hot Topic.

Better yet, lets get a grocery store or a Target. Lets make downtown not only a destination that competes with Cherry Creek for Denver residents and people coming in from the suburbs for a shopping experience - lets make it also a contained neighborhood that can serve the needs of its own residents when they need food or random items. If they can get everything they need close to home, they're much less likely to want cars.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

I won't complain about any new retail that goes in Downtown but I think what we really need is something that appeals to a more general population. Our goal isn't to make Denver elite and fashonable, it's to make it useful and human-oriented. We should really be rooting for somewhere that all of us shop at a regular basis.

Think about a suburban mall, and the difference between the anchor store and everything else in the mall. The anchor store is valuable because it so big and appeals a broad population, bringing people in to feed the mall, hence its label as "anchor." A few of the people who visit the anchor stores will walk through the mall and stop at smaller stores and the snack places, which appeal to niche populations and wouldn't be able to bring in the crowds on their own.

Urban Outfitters is great for teenagers, college students, and young hip adults. Everyone else is going to consider it overpriced, and the market it appeals to are young attractive people who like wearing tight, up-to-date edgy clothing they can go out in (but wouldn't wear to work). That's why it could never be an anchor store, no matter how big you make it.

I think we could use a Sears, Macy's, Kohls or a Dillards. That's what makes Downtown a convenient place for pretty much anyone to shop rather than just a destination for young fashionable suburban kids looking to go to Abercrombie and Fitch or Hot Topic.

Better yet, lets get a grocery store or a Target. Lets make downtown not only a destination that competes with Cherry Creek for Denver residents and people coming in from the suburbs for a shopping experience - lets make it also a contained neighborhood that can serve the needs of its own residents when they need food or random items. If they can get everything they need close to home, they're much less likely to want cars.

I'll grant you a grocery store would be good for downtown, as the residents won't have go very far for groceries. As for some of the other stores... Sears and Kohls, I have to wonder. For those stores, why would I go downtown for them when I can just go to a suburban mall? Sure, a Macy's or Dillards could work, but downtown has to be more than generic big boxes.
What about stores Denver does not have? H & M and Trader Joes come to mind.

[Ilsaz]

In talking about the sort of retail needed to make downtown thrive, we are all talking about big national stores getting a presence there. And this is a good thing and I am OK with it.

But I want to mention that, in my mind, what makes neighborhoods and communities thrive are successful, small and local businesses. This is what gives a city its character more than anything else: the mom and pop enterprises it is able to support.

I'm not saying for a second that there isn't a place for corporate retail and I agree that downtown is sorely lacking in that department. But I will say that the abundance of small spaces and prime geography of the 16th St. Mall makes it an ideal place for a more local flavor.

OK. I was just expressing an opinion. Please don't personally attack me.

[wong21fr]

^Yet the local retailors won't go to the mall because it is prime real estate and is costly for start-ups.

DT is lacking a area for local retailors to establish themselves. Something that has older facilities with cheaper rents rather than the prime rents demanded for locations along the mall.

Every place DT is either so damn trendy or is a parking lot. There is no in between right now and it's becoming really frustrating.

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

I'll grant you a grocery store would be good for downtown, as the residents won't have go very far for groceries. As for some of the other stores... Sears and Kohls, I have to wonder. For those stores, why would I go downtown for them when I can just go to a suburban mall? Sure, a Macy's or Dillards could work, but downtown has to be more than generic big boxes.
What about stores Denver does not have? H & M and Trader Joes come to mind.

The same could be said in reverse: why go to a subrban mall if you could just get those things downtown?

Downtown or its surrounding neighborhoods is where many people happen to live, so that's why I'm not going to just go to the suburbs to get it. Nobody's gonna drive all the way to Flatiron Crossing to visit Nordstroms when they could easily just head down to the Downtown Nordstroms a few blocks away.

The great thing about a successful urban area is that it essentially contains the whole universe. A healthy city has multiple layers. It has things that would only be found in the dense center - tall office buildings, transit hubs, stadiums, museums and art galleries, residential towers, etc. That's the top layer, it's why we love Downtown so much in particular, and its great.

But downtown also has a Taco Bell and a movie theater, even though you could find those virtually anywhere you have people - it's one of the lowest layers.

I think the drive behind the new philosophy behind urbanism is to say, rather than having designated "zones," your office buildings in a neighborhood over here, your apartment buildings in a separate nighborhood over here, your retail in a shopping mall over here... rather than having those zones - which is the way we did it in the 1970s - we mix it up. We've found that having everything in one neighborhood decreases the need to travel long distances, so it removes congestion, helps neighborhoods avoid boom and bust cycles, and makes a better urban area and higher quality of life. There should be some retail, some office, some residential. So if there is a Target every 40 blocks in the Metro area and there's a big hole where one SHOULD be Downtown, then by god, lets have a Target there.

The whole metro area is covered with general department stores where you can get all kinds of affordable stuff. There's no reason Downtown Denver should be a huge hole in the metro area when it comes to mainstream retail to meet mainstream needs.

Could it possibly hurt?

[blm3034L!fe]

I was watching the Nuggets Dallas semi conference series yesterday afternoon, and they did a pano shot of downtown Denver and it was lacking Sprie and Four Seasons? How could that be if they were supposedly taking "Live shots" of downtown Denver? Especially from Speer Blvd looking east angle!?!?

I am both pissed off and disapointed!!!