DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by rds70

Looks like Greystar will be buying and constructing another project with an already approved site plan. They did the same thing with 1800 Market:

https://businessden.com/2019/08/12/a...-sells-for-9m/

Also, a building permit has been submitted for the 990 Park Avenue condominium project:

https://denverinfill.com/blog/2018/0...html#iLightbox

Greystar has a nice Denver portfolio so I hope they abandon the existing Kephart abomination and design something completely new. I know everyone else thinks the Welton barges are fine but I walked down the street the other day and holy hell do those buildings have an awful and cold feeling from the street level.

[pablosan]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Greystar has a nice Denver portfolio so I hope they abandon the existing Kephart abomination and design something completely new. I know everyone else thinks the Welton barges are fine but I walked down the street the other day and holy hell do those buildings have an awful and cold feeling from the street level.

I personally feel that they are deplorable. They provide density and nothing else.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

I know everyone else thinks the Welton barges are fine...

All I can remember seeing is criticism.

I wish a developer would take advantage of the new zoning and give us a tall, skinny point tower or two. If I remember correctly this 13-story jobby will be another barge, no?

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

All I can remember seeing is criticism.

I wish a developer would take advantage of the new zoning and give us a tall, skinny point tower or two. If I remember correctly this 13-story jobby will be another barge, no?

Yep it is a barge indeed. It looks like a larger version of Civic Lofts Denver (13th and Delaware), which is to say it looks like someone puked oatmeal.

At least, Market Station and McGregor Square will look interesting. I also like the prism building and the source hotel.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by pablosan

I personally feel that they are deplorable. They provide density and nothing else.

Agreed. Clearly inspired by East Berlin, circa 1980, but with less inviting retail.




I believe the architects may have actually used this picture as a model for housing development along a light rail line:




The souless-ness of the populace walking along urban corridors with such development models is captured by this classic photo:

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Greystar has a nice Denver portfolio so I hope they abandon the existing Kephart abomination and design something completely new. I know everyone else thinks the Welton barges are fine but I walked down the street the other day and holy hell do those buildings have an awful and cold feeling from the street level.

They've done this twice before (coming in and buying a permitted project) and just go ahead with the approved design since that was probably included in the sales price. No reason to think that the 3rd time will be any different.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Anyone following this DIA debacle? I was just watching their press conference. What a freaking mess

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Anyone following this DIA debacle? I was just watching their press conference. What a freaking mess

It's hard to judge from here who's at fault - has the contractor really f*cked up?

The story in the Post indicates that the City is not declaring a breach, but is terminating the agreement for its convenience. This apparently means that the City will have to make the contractor whole:

The breakup could cost DIA upward of $200 million, including making Great Hall Partners whole for their investment and borrowing. Estimates are still being put together, DIA finance chief Gisela Shanahan said.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/1...tion-contract/

If the Great Hall really didn't perform its agreement, the City could have attempted to declare a breach, and then could have litigated whether they have to make Great Hall Partners whole. The fact that they chose the path they did makes me think one or more of the following to be true:

1. Although Great Hall may have been in breach, the City didn't have the balls to to go to court against Great Hall and wanted an easy (albeit expensive) out.

2. Great Hall isn't in breach, and most if not all the fault here lies with the city.

3. Great Hall may be in breach, and/or may have done a crap job of managing these issues but the city negotiated a total crap contract that didn't' really protect the city from these outcomes.

If this were a private business dealing with Great Hall, any party with a credible claim of breach likely would have declared a breach to attempt to avoid the termination fee and/or to use the breach claim to negotiate down the the amount of the break up fee. From experience, government tends to avoid such hard ball tactics.

Whatever the truth, bad news for the airport and I got to think the cost overruns and financial problems will likely mount.

[Ich]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Agreed. Clearly inspired by East Berlin, circa 1980, but with less inviting retail.




I believe the architects may have actually used this picture as a model for housing development along a light rail line:




The souless-ness of the populace walking along urban corridors with such development models is captured by this classic photo:

I think you all are a bit dramatic about it lol. Radiant looks fine and does Alexan 20th Street Station. Alexan Arapahoe Square is a little rough but that was supposed to be the “cheaper” building between the two Alexan’s so they didn’t invest as much into materials or finishes. I think it’s because they are built in a sea of parking lots so unless it was an architectural wonder, you guys wouldn’t like it... because it sticks out. Once the rest is built out, it will blend into the urban fabric. And yes the new Greystar one will help. Also those barges are putting a 1000 residences into a lame part of downtown. All city’s have uninspiring buildings... even block long ones.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

It's hard to judge from here who's at fault - has the contractor really f*cked up?

The story in the Post indicates that the City is not declaring a breach, but is terminating the agreement for its convenience. This apparently means that the City will have to make the contractor whole:

The breakup could cost DIA upward of $200 million, including making Great Hall Partners whole for their investment and borrowing. Estimates are still being put together, DIA finance chief Gisela Shanahan said.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/1...tion-contract/

If the Great Hall really didn't perform its agreement, the City could have attempted to declare a breach, and then could have litigated whether they have to make Great Hall Partners whole. The fact that they chose the path they did makes me think one or more of the following to be true:

1. Although Great Hall may have been in breach, the City didn't have the balls to to go to court against Great Hall and wanted an easy (albeit expensive) out.

2. Great Hall isn't in breach, and most if not all the fault here lies with the city.

3. Great Hall may be in breach, and/or may have done a crap job of managing these issues but the city negotiated a total crap contract that didn't' really protect the city from these outcomes.

If this were a private business dealing with Great Hall, any party with a credible claim of breach likely would have declared a breach to attempt to avoid the termination fee and/or to use the breach claim to negotiate down the the amount of the break up fee. From experience, government tends to avoid such hard ball tactics.

Whatever the truth, bad news for the airport and I got to think the cost overruns and financial problems will likely mount.

I suspect DIA's preoccupation with the timetable probably would have made any threats of litigation less credible. Now they are going to directly oversee operations and design. They are just going to contract out the actual construction. Apparently, the concrete is safe enough for construction equipment according the February report.

Between this, FasTracks, the C470 project, and the convention center, we are starting to look super inept at procuring contractors and completing critical civic/infrastructure projects. By the way, CDOT might terminate their contractor for the C470 project. That project was supposed to be done August 1.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

It's hard to judge from here who's at fault - has the contractor really f*cked up?

The story in the Post indicates that the City is not declaring a breach, but is terminating the agreement for its convenience. This apparently means that the City will have to make the contractor whole:

The breakup could cost DIA upward of $200 million, including making Great Hall Partners whole for their investment and borrowing. Estimates are still being put together, DIA finance chief Gisela Shanahan said.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/1...tion-contract/

My non-legal view is more interesting?

DIA had issues, concerns with the existing concrete and took months to explore it's adequacy. Afaik the conclusion is that overall it's not a (big) problem.

Denver's view is that in spite of the concrete concerns there was plenty of work that could have been done but satisfactory progress was not made. They question they overall quality, safety and efficiency of their process.

9News provided nice coverage: https://www.9news.com/article/news/i...1-e08001256bb6

She said GHP is open to negotiating a "mutually acceptable resolution" to avoid triggering the Dispute Resolution Process in the agreement.

Denver clearly believes GHP is trying to fleece Denver, that they're not negotiating in good faith. Apparently litigating through the Dispute Resolution Process would be time consuming, very expensive and disruptive to getting the project done.

I assume Denver wants to cut bait if GHP can't perform under the original agreement so Denver can find somebody who can.

What I don't know is what other issues may be in the background like labor issues or escalating construction costs that impact GHP's overall view of what they're doing.

It would presumably be best if both parties could reach a reasonable accommodation but what is reasonable is the obvious problem.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I suspect DIA's preoccupation with the timetable probably would have made any threats of litigation less credible. Now they are going to directly oversee operations and design. They are just going to contract out the actual construction. Apparently, the concrete is safe enough for construction equipment according the February report.

Between this, FasTracks, the C470 project, and the convention center, we are starting to look super inept at procuring contractors and completing critical civic/infrastructure projects. By the way, CDOT might terminate their contractor for the C470 project. That project was supposed to be done August 1.

Great insight. It sounds like we're on a similar page.

FWIW, as I followed stuff in Seattle it would seem at worst what Denver is experiencing is nothing worse when it comes to projects. In fact, I sorta feel like Denver is more on top of things than some of the crazy stuff that happened in Seattle. Bottom Line: Good guess that most cities often have to deal with stupid stuff.

Edit: Ah, I just caught the updated news on this. Be curious to see what GHP's response is?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

They've done this twice before (coming in and buying a permitted project) and just go ahead with the approved design since that was probably included in the sales price. No reason to think that the 3rd time will be any different.

What was the 3rd project? The one on Speer?

Originally Posted by Ich

I think you all are a bit dramatic about it lol. Radiant looks fine and does Alexan 20th Street Station. Alexan Arapahoe Square is a little rough but that was supposed to be the “cheaper” building between the two Alexan’s so they didn’t invest as much into materials or finishes. I think it’s because they are built in a sea of parking lots so unless it was an architectural wonder, you guys wouldn’t like it... because it sticks out. Once the rest is built out, it will blend into the urban fabric. And yes the new Greystar one will help. Also those barges are putting a 1000 residences into a lame part of downtown. All city’s have uninspiring buildings... even block long ones.

Great post.

I've had interesting thoughts around this but I tend toward more detailed comments so maybe later.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Agreed. Clearly inspired by East Berlin, circa 1980, but with less inviting retail.

I believe the architects may have actually used this picture as a model for housing development along a light rail line:


The souless-ness of the populace walking along urban corridors with such development models is captured by this classic photo:

Yes, the GDR was terrible and oppressive. Let's get that out of the way. And yes, these apartments might be ugly and soulless, but they helped give Berlin the lowest housing costs of any western European capital until very recently... Not only that, but Berlin was an amazing place because of the cheap rent and available space. And the western sectors have a lot of really fugly housing too, because most of the city was in ruins in 1945 and a lot of people had to be housed quickly.

I would love if Denver emulated Berlin and actually built housing for everyone. I don't care if everything looks like it was built from used concrete, because the cultural advantages when people aren't worried about housing costs far outweigh any other arguments.

Personally, I don't really care about what the Welton container ships look like, because they're a billion times better than the empty lots that were there before, and it's more city-center housing. If we start bickering about what's replacing empty lots and fighting for more expensive designs we're only going to guarantee empty lots stay empty longer. We still have a lot of dead space to fill before we get to that point.

[twister244]

I know someone on here took a professional photo of the beautiful storm east of Denver this evening...... My god was that epic......

I took photos, but don't have them readily available on a bucket account to post yet.

[pablosan]

Originally Posted by Ich

I think you all are a bit dramatic about it lol. Radiant looks fine and does Alexan 20th Street Station. Alexan Arapahoe Square is a little rough but that was supposed to be the “cheaper” building between the two Alexan’s so they didn’t invest as much into materials or finishes. I think it’s because they are built in a sea of parking lots so unless it was an architectural wonder, you guys wouldn’t like it... because it sticks out. Once the rest is built out, it will blend into the urban fabric. And yes the new Greystar one will help. Also those barges are putting a 1000 residences into a lame part of downtown. All city’s have uninspiring buildings... even block long ones.

Like I said, it provides density and nothing else. In my mind, 18th & Market, also a land barge, is done right, if it stays true to the rendering. Dairy block is another land barge that I feel is done right. Neither of them are architectural wonders, but rather, they look to engage the streetscape, and are built to human scale. Market Station, done right. One city block done right. Almost every Alexan development downtown, looks like a variation of the exact same building. Just my opinion though.

[TakeFive]

Density; I'll go with that

Originally Posted by pablosan

Like I said, it provides density and nothing else. In my mind, 18th & Market, also a land barge, is done right...

TCR projects tend to the pedestrian and if that's the worst then that's not too shabby. TCR, could jazz up their cookie cutter a bit when desired. For example, in Cherry Creek they utilize recessed balconies which gives the building a more sophisticated look on the outside as well as feel to the tenants.

I'm not sure every block or every side of the street needs to be warm and fuzzy at the street level although it would be nice. But I'll give a H/T to mojiferous as there is valuable utility in density as a primary objective.

Location, location, location

When the DUS neighborhood was mapped out it was obvious from looking at a blank canvass that those sites closer to 16th street, the station and along the promenade would be the prime sites. That's pretty much how it played out; as you move away from these sites the projects became less impressive.

LoDo with it's restrictions/requirements would also encourage a higher level of street appeal by intent. Generally along Speer Blvd some of the projects are sizable but they do generally reflect the dignity of the Boulevard.

I guessed many years ago that as you move into the Ball Park and Arapahoe Square neighborhoods that project expectations should be tempered.

RiNo, along Brighton Blvd started with its artys-fartsy appeal but many of the residential projects are only about density and efficiency.

Developers gonna do what developers do which isn't always the most appealing but does provide its primary objective of providing housing. And I think that's Okay. Density and more affordable housing is a worthy objective.

I stated years ago that on the whole the overall project quality - judged on the inside as much as the outside - has been generally impressive as building periods go. Many of these projects while imperfect could have been much worse and more tenement like.

[CherryCreek]

Dupe.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Ich

I think you all are a bit dramatic about it lol. Radiant looks fine and does Alexan 20th Street Station. Alexan Arapahoe Square is a little rough but that was supposed to be the “cheaper” building between the two Alexan’s so they didn’t invest as much into materials or finishes. I think it’s because they are built in a sea of parking lots so unless it was an architectural wonder, you guys wouldn’t like it... because it sticks out. Once the rest is built out, it will blend into the urban fabric. And yes the new Greystar one will help. Also those barges are putting a 1000 residences into a lame part of downtown. All city’s have uninspiring buildings... even block long ones.

I am having some fun at the expense of the Welton Street corridor and the Denver land barge/Soviet housing style. Radiant does indeed have some positive qualities, including some solid material choice (brick and glass) and some very cool interiors.

Having said that, the disappointment to me is not that Denver has some uninspiring buildings that came out this cycle - all cities do, as you note. It's that so very little high quality, inspiring residential large building construction came out of one Denver's greatest economic cycles in its history. Compare that to Austin and Seattle and other cities, Denver got a lot boxes and barges, and, IMHO, no truly exceptional towers. Even the most notable tower, the Confluence, in my view, while having many positives, did not live up to its potential for such a prominent site. (Country Club towers also has a lot to like, but is away from the urban core).

Uninspiring occurs everywhere, even in Austin, Seattle and, I'm sure, even in Vancouver. But at least those cities have plenty of examples of outstanding and inspiring large residential structures that have been added this cycle.

[Ich]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I am having some fun at the expense of the Welton Street corridor and the Denver land barge/Soviet housing style. Radiant does indeed have some positive qualities, including some solid material choice (brick and glass) and some very cool interiors.

Having said that, the disappointment to me is not that Denver has some uninspiring buildings that came out this cycle - all cities do, as you note. It's that so very little high quality, inspiring residential large building construction came out of one Denver's greatest economic cycles in its history. Compare that to Austin and Seattle and other cities, Denver got a lot boxes and barges, and, IMHO, no truly exceptional towers. Even the most notable tower, the Confluence, in my view, while having many positives, did not live up to its potential for such a prominent site. (Country Club towers also has a lot to like, but is away from the urban core).

Uninspiring occurs everywhere, even in Austin, Seattle and, I'm sure, even in Vancouver. But at least those cities have plenty of examples of outstanding and inspiring large residential structures that have been added this cycle.

I can’t speak to Austin but for Seattle, they have DRB in place and also are able to achieve higher rents supporting higher quality materials and design. For instance I opened a high rise in the Denny Triangle area, similar to the Confluence (less metal and more glass) but my two bedrooms started at $3890. If you look at buildings pushing those rents, most would agree they like the design. Most people on here aren’t in favor of DRB or any other restriction placed on design elements in favor of cheaper rents. For instance we could say half block sites must be built as twin towers past a certain level (as what Seattle did) but then you increase the cost of construction pushing rents higher or developers will stay under that height lessening the density and available supply. Not saying its perfect but just saying it’s not that big of a deal. They are the first buildings in a transitioning zone. Once the new Greystar, Kenect, various Condo proposals and those adult dorms go up, those awful soul sucking ships won’t have the same impact on the skyline. I used to hate the Manhattan but now it just blends into Union Station and Riverfront.