DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The recession isn't why meaningful amounts of affordable housing aren't getting built in central cities. It may be why it's not getting built out on the edge of sprawl. But unless you're going to argue that forcing affordable housing out to the edge of sprawl is ideal policy, that's really only a small part of the issue.

Perhaps you hadn't had the chance to read my Part Two?

It wasn't the recession but what happened after the recession as I explained above.

West of the Mississippi and especially in Denver, downtown had not been in high demand. Everything changed with the Great Millennial Migration which nobody could have predicted. But sure play Monday Morning QB all you want.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

When zoning only allows enough units to satisfy 10% of the demand in a place, developers only build for the 10% wealthiest buyers. This is the situation in central cities today.

That is totally false for all the reasons stated above and for the fact that there has been no shortage of land and there still isn't.

[TakeFive]

Many of these propsed hotels are going funky

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

There are a substantial number of hotel developments in the pipeline. BusinessDen compiled an interesting list of 10 major projects expected to break ground this year

https://businessden.com/2020/01/06/1...enver-in-2020/

It appears with these latest hotels nearby to the Colorado Convention Center there will be nice healthy pickings. But then when larger conventions arrive all the rooms in the downtown fill up anyway.

Between the Marriott which should become like a second anchor there will also be the historically fun Emily Griffith hotel and presumably the Hawkeye-built hotel will be more downscale so it's a nice mix.

Which makes me wonder when and if they'll ever get around to the convention center expansion. I wouldn't be surprised that with all the delay they're now having difficulty getting the project to pencil out.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Why in the world would most of these stations provide more affordable housing in any significant number? Central Park Station is in the wealthiest zip code in Denver- you're not going to see very much new housing stock there that would be considered somewhat affordable.

This is what is said:

What is affordable housing anyway? It literally depends on who you ask.

All these corridors beckon for TOD of some type and density and all will contribute closer-in living opportunities of varying affordability.

Supposedly the River Mile development is to include affordable housing. Will that actually happen and what does that mean? How the hell should I know what will end up happening.

It's still too speculative to know exactly how much and at what price points but it's clear that some TOD sites are highly likely to be more affordable than others.

Y'all like to conflate things.

Unless you're reading selectively, I am not categorically against any added density in places like Curtis Park. But whether any of the added density adds what someone might consider 'affordable' is highly speculative and even doubtful.

If Y'all want to destroy the current historical quality of all nearby neighborhoods I'm not the obstacle. I don't live or vote in Denver.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

One Platte broke ground with what seems no lease contracts signed. If I'm right, 1144 and block 162 both broke ground on pure speculation as well. Does this mean that Denver's market has reached a level where it is easier to secure financing? If so... wtf T2

"No tenants have committed to the project. That’s a change from the original plan; a Nichols executive said last year the company wanted a signed lease before it broke ground."

https://businessden.com/2020/02/10/n...ng-one-platte/

Virtually all spec building are by developers who have horsepower to do so. With One Platte I see where Shorenstein Properties has become an equity partner. Interestingly I only recently posted about their sale of Denver City Center.

[mhays]

Per typical, Cirrus and laniroj are saying basically what I would (and often better than I could). TakeFive, you keep confusing issues.

As for affordability, the two biggest issues might be these:
1. Very little land allows significant density, so the land that does is far more expensive than it should be.
2. Scarcity of close-in housing has meant an increasing premium for it (all kinds) in recent decades.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Per typical, Cirrus and laniroj are saying basically what I would (and often better than I could). TakeFive, you keep confusing issues.

As for affordability, the two biggest issues might be these:
1. Very little land allows significant density, so the land that does is far more expensive than it should be.
2. Scarcity of close-in housing has meant an increasing premium for it (all kinds) in recent decades.

I understand you're on the same philosophical page.

But the reading comprehension around here is lacking. I originally responded to laniroj whose comment was all over the map. He claimed we had a national housing crisis. Well there's no housing crisis in the Rust Belt and there's no housing crisis in the Sunbelt.

I've been speaking directly to the historical record and how and why we ended up where we now are. It's not just about downtown it the whole metro area https://www.zillow.com/denver-co/home-values/

The median home value in (metro) Denver is $451,513. The median price of homes currently listed in Denver is $465,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $438,900. The median rent price in Denver is $2,150,

The escalation in Denver prices (everywhere) has been on steroids in recent years as a direct result of the reasons I articulated.

The escalation in land prices in RiNo (for example) is a relatively recent event. Those early projects built along Brighton Blvd predated that as did many other projects. All of the apartments in or near downtown while called "luxury," there's really only a handful of legitimately higher end apartments like along Speer Blvd or in Union Station neighborhood. Most of the rest are tomorrow's more affordable housing, once they get a little age on them.

As to what 'should' happen that's a different kettle of fish. With regard to specific neighborhoods that's also a specific topic. There's a lot of assumptions being made based on a simplistic view of supply and demand but it's not that simple.

As for what you'd like to do it has nothing to do with me. It's about the citizen-voters of Denver.

[TakeFive]

Steam on the Platte

https://denverite.com/2020/02/10/a-s...e-not-forever/

Developer Susan Powers is readying a warehouse and a parking lot in Sun Valley for their next lives as a 4-story parking garage wrapped by either office space or apartment homes.

The proposed structures are the latest piece of Steam on the Platte, a riverside development meant to reinvent the area around 2060 W. Colfax Ave. with a nod to its industrial past. On Monday, the Denver City Council OK’d new building parameters on the site, next to Raices Brewing Company, that allow eight stories and a mix of things like offices, restaurants, retail space and homes.

Sachs understandably doesn't like that parking garage.

“I would love to be one of those people that agrees that we don’t need or should have less parking at all these buildings, but the reality is, everybody’s still driving their car in Denver,” Powers told Denverite. “We can pretend like that’s not happening, but it’s happening.”

University of Colorado Denver researcher Wes Marshall studies urban transportation, including the role that parking can play in traffic generation. But he also understands how it gets built despite Denver’s stated goals of encouraging more sustainable transportation modes. “It is a legitimate stance to take, especially because most lenders won’t give you money unless you have what they consider enough parking,”

[mhays]

Fair enough, I haven't read the whole history here.

But they have the basic facts right, on the basic points such as the lack of buildable infill capacity and the cost of scarcity.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Fair enough, I haven't read the whole history here.

But they have the basic facts right, on the basic points such as the lack of buildable infill capacity and the cost of scarcity.

Actually that's not accurate either.

Their whole rap goes to older, well established specific neighborhoods and its existing zoning which I had nothing to do with. To that specific angle then there is lack of sites within some specific neighborhoods. But even in many older, historical neighborhoods there is some density being added. But in many cases it's the proverbial missing middle which doesn't move the needle that much but more is better than less certainly.

There is tons of infill 'land' available for more dense development. The scarcity goes more to the normally slow process to get sites entitled, permitted and then funded and built. It also reflects that those developers who like Denver (including Holland) only want so many projects on their plate at a time. In some cases smaller builders have had to work harder for funding or for subcontractors. You know as well as anyone that development takes years. It's no different in Denver from what you face in Seattle.

But scarcity of infill land is NOT the problem.

[mhays]

That's categorically wrong.

Any idea what land prices are for areas that allow high density, and the relevant trends?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's categorically wrong.

Any idea what land prices are for areas that allow high density, and the relevant trends?

Everybody seems to catch the tunnel vision virus. It's like the Coronavirus; it's just too easy to catch.

Yes, as I stated above land prices have been going up especially is certain locations. Of course that impacts the ability to build more affordable housing in those areas. But it varies; there's also plenty of other land where costs are more reasonable.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I just think that focusing on Curtis Park as a big part of the problem when you still have TONS of develope-able land in OTHER close in to downtown areas, such as Araphahoe Square, Golden Triangle, Cap Hill, River Mile, Mile Hi, Sun Valley, Brighton Blvd, north RiNO, Ballpark, etc., makes no sense.

Without touching the historical area of Curtis Park, with other changes to zoning and height restrictions elsewhere how much density could you still add to these close-in areas? 100,000 residents?

Feel free to read this post where I detailed 10 different urban rail stations with varying amounts of land for TOD. This should add a variety of housing at different price points but generally more affordable than the hot spots can.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by mhays

Fair enough, I haven't read the whole history here.

But they have the basic facts right, on the basic points such as the lack of buildable infill capacity and the cost of scarcity.

Don't worry, you're about the 5th person who TakeFive claims needs to improve their reading comprehension.

[TakeFive]

Barely relevant but totally hilarious

Somebody must of have put something in the drinking water before the last City Council election. Wasn't Amanda Sawyer wong's favorite new councilor?

7Denver News has the stories here and here.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Don't worry, you're about the 5th person who TakeFive claims needs to improve their reading comprehension.

[bulldurhamer]

In today's episode of "Cars are dying", by pompous "urbanists" who believe in Santa Claus:
https://businessden.com/2020/02/11/d...lls-for-10-7m/

But keep screaming NO CARS. i'm sure it'll happen for you. :uhh

What other great ideas do you all swear are true should we hear? Here's a great job done by the denverinfill crew https://denverinfill.com/blog/2020/0...and-after.html

look for yourself. The fact of the matter is that there are dozens if not hundreds of undeveloped lots in the downtown and adjacent areas.

but sure, we are so desperate to tear down old established neighborhoods. the last places in town that we haven't torn down.

is it good urbanism or jealousy that they didn't get in first? hmm

we have a housing crisis, not a space crisis. this isn't new york.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's categorically wrong.

Any idea what land prices are for areas that allow high density, and the relevant trends?

Depends on where obviously. In RiNo, a hot warehousey area, around $180/sf. For a project-sized parcel with most infrastructure in and 12 story zoning.

There are hundreds of undeveloped acres within 2 miles of downtown with that sort of zoning and economics. Between RiNo, Arapahoe Square, and now River Mile. There will be 42 acres more at the National Western Center (edge of RiNo, but transit and river-adjacent), probably 15 story zoning, and that is assumed to be a 25-year buildout. If we had a housing crisis borne just of pent up demand, and the barrier was just no land to satisfy it, we’d have a lot more cranes than we do. Seems to me the housing crisis we talk about here is very localized; everybody wants to live in the same three areas, and that just doesn’t work. As for the other housing crisis - lack of options for the very poor - well, the U.S. market has never been able to figure that one out.

[Sam Hill]

Interesting...


A Sun Valley development along the South Platte River will have a huge parking garage (but maybe not forever?)

“I would love to be one of those people that agrees that we don’t need or should have less parking at all these buildings, but the reality is, everybody’s still driving their car in Denver,” Powers told Denverite. “We can pretend like that’s not happening, but it’s happening.”

Powers is interested in building a convertible parking garage — a parking structure built to become something more useful, like homes, if and when privately owned vehicles become less popular than public transit, bikes, self-driving cars or whatever other tech might change the status quo in the future.

"Convertible parking garage." I like it that idea.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Depends on where obviously. In RiNo, a hot warehousey area, around $180/sf. For a project-sized parcel with most infrastructure in and 12 story zoning.

There are hundreds of undeveloped acres within 2 miles of downtown with that sort of zoning and economics. Between RiNo, Arapahoe Square, and now River Mile. There will be 42 acres more at the National Western Center (edge of RiNo, but transit and river-adjacent), probably 15 story zoning, and that is assumed to be a 25-year buildout. If we had a housing crisis borne just of pent up demand, and the barrier was just no land to satisfy it, we’d have a lot more cranes than we do. Seems to me the housing crisis we talk about here is very localized; everybody wants to live in the same three areas, and that just doesn’t work. As for the other housing crisis - lack of options for the very poor - well, the U.S. market has never been able to figure that one out.

Yeah, I agree here. I think the answers to some of these questions are somewhere in-between. Yes, Denver has tons of land. However, I suspect one issue was earlier last decade, developers and the city were simply unprepared for the level of growth that occurred. I suspect no city can adequately plan and anticipate going from 600k people to 700k people in one decade. I feel like that created a huge bottleneck that escalated prices quickly. Prices are still rising, but not to the extend we saw five years ago.

However, we need to be careful not to go into full NIMBY mode and try to protect every single ugly ass post-war bungalow in this city. Yes, there are homes/buildings in some neighborhoods that shouldn't be scrapped, but not in neighborhoods west of downtown where they really don't have historical significance. Sorry..... but here in Jeff Park, I see houses getting scrapped all the time, and they aren't special.

Then there's the whole problem of zoning. We definitely need to make sure our zoning is up-to-date to reflect our growing needs. Folks who live here also need to understand this is a growing city, and will continue to do so. Trying to artificially cap that is a horrible idea, and doesn't benefit anyone (unless you own property).

And yes, we need to make sure we have affordable housing to mitigate the pain being put on those who can't afford the price increases.

Again, there aren't simple answers to all of this.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Interesting...

"Convertible parking garage." I like it that idea.

So I do this for a living, and that's not really a thing. You can always rehab a garage into other usable space, but if's always cheaper/more efficient to rebuild a garage as something new. Garage have live and dead loads so different than habitats and work places, and people prefer to work/live with higher ceilings. An investment in a parking garage is a long term one.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Regarding bulldurhamer's post, it is absurd that one can park in the center of downtown for a lower monthly payment than a regional RTD monthly pass. The reality is that the economics greatly favor driving in Denver. However, the fact that driving makes more sense now does not mean that Denver shouldn't strive to become substantially less car dependent going forward. I would be in favor of a revision of RTD's fare pricing rules, a carbon tax, congestion pricing, and adding more transit-only lanes in addition to the sweeping redevelopment of surface lots that we see today.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Seems to me the housing crisis we talk about here is very localized; everybody wants to live in the same three areas,

pretty much...