DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[DenvertoLA]

Do you all think all these hotel proposals are because of the voter approved expansion of the convention center ? .....what is the update on that expansion?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Do you all think all these hotel proposals are because of the voter approved expansion of the convention center ? .....what is the update on that expansion?

Mired in scandal with a criminal investigation ongoing. So it's going to be delayed.

[JB1530]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Or we could, you know, just allow for added density and not have to pay for it through yet another tax. To go with the quadrupling of our city taxes that folks want to fund an umpteen billion dollar program for transit. Keep it up, Denver, and my kids are going to need a few of those healthy school lunches we approved last time around.

So this kind of uncertainty over funding mechanisms is the challenge we're facing on Larimer. The condition of the buildings and their systems continues to deteriorate and we need to be able to plan something with some degree of certainty. We could aim for some kind of city-wide tax, or a massive package of tax credits, or some combination of the two, but there are no guarantees. Hence the more market-based proposal.

I'm not trying to advocate for the original project as it has indeed been scrapped. That may or may not have been the right solution - that is irrelevant now. What is relevant is that something needs to give and the existing tools don't appear to be sufficient.

To say nothing of the opportunity to do something forward-thinking that sets new precedent, and results in something Denver can be genuinely proud of. Like the original vision for Larimer Square.

[DenvertoLA]

The argument that adding density to Larimer Square would destroy the historical character seems weak. There is a 20+ something tower right next door.


In the original proposal the roofs were constructed to become public spaces. If done right, I think that concept would become a real identifier for the area and would activate all these new residence downtown.

just my 2 cents

[corey]

Glad to see a proposal for 14th and Stout. Didn’t someone once propose an age-restricted condo tower there? Further up 14th, I really wish the old Meiningers building would get torn down for something. A parking lot would actually be an improvement over that eyesore.

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

The argument that adding density to Larimer Square would destroy the historical character seems weak. There is a 20+ something tower right next door.

In the original proposal the roofs were constructed to become public spaces. If done right, I think that concept would become a real identifier for the area and would activate all these new residence downtown.

just my 2 cents

I don't have one of these pencils that developer's talk about when they say a project didn't pencil out, but would it be possible to demolish 1450 Larimer (built 2003) and create a carefully-architected taller building as an addition to 1460 Larmier that would make it large enough for a significant office tenant? Something like 1510 Market that landed a fairly high-profile tech company.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Or we could, you know, just allow for added density and not have to pay for it through yet another tax. To go with the quadrupling of our city taxes that folks want to fund an umpteen billion dollar program for transit. Keep it up, Denver, and my kids are going to need a few of those healthy school lunches we approved last time around.

Yeah, I don't know if I really think a HP tax is a good idea but I just tossed it out there.

What about TDRs (transferable development rights)? Could Larimer Associates sell their air rights if they don't/can't build up? Edit--it probably wouldn't help with the no height limit/generous Floor Area Ratio in downtown already.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by jhwk

I don't have one of these pencils that developer's talk about when they say a project didn't pencil out, but would it be possible to demolish 1450 Larimer (built 2003) and create a carefully-architected taller building as an addition to 1460 Larmier that would make it large enough for a significant office tenant? Something like 1510 Market that landed a fairly high-profile tech company.

Looking at the City's property map tool, it looks like the assessed value (I think it's three lots?) is north of $500/sf of land, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000 sf and $8,000,000. Presumably assessments are well below what someone would pay.

There are nearby parking lots with highrise zoning that are assessed in the $300/sf range, as is a nearby lot on Speer. Those lots don't have Larimer's charm, but they aren't dragged down by existing leases, they'd be easy politically (guessing from afar), and it wouldn't cost much to clear them. I have no idea whether they have complications like hazmat.

It sounds like an extremely expensive and difficult location for offices. And of course people probably want Larimer to be more about retail and restaurants anyway, so the base of the building might need to be devoted to those.

[JB1530]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Yeah, I don't know if I really think a HP tax is a good idea but I just tossed it out there.

What about TDRs (transferable development rights)? Could Larimer Associates sell their air rights if they don't/can't build up? Edit--it probably wouldn't help with the no height limit/generous Floor Area Ratio in downtown already.

You've hit the nail on the head there. FARs are really generous in D-C so there is very little Market for TDRs. Dana barked up that tree in the early 80s (when she proposed a tower on Market St., as well as a hotel that spanned across 14th St.) Supposedly that was her reasoning for seeking individual listing of the 11 buildings she did - you can't sever TDRs from a building that is merely contributing to a Historic District, the building has to be listed individually.

All that aside, when Dana sold to the Hahn Company in the 80s, she retained most of the TDRs. Larimer has some, but she has close to 2.5x.

[JB1530]

Originally Posted by jhwk

I don't have one of these pencils that developer's talk about when they say a project didn't pencil out, but would it be possible to demolish 1450 Larimer (built 2003) and create a carefully-architected taller building as an addition to 1460 Larmier that would make it large enough for a significant office tenant? Something like 1510 Market that landed a fairly high-profile tech company.

Yes that is certainly something that is possible. The dirt under 1450 is on a ground lease - the only dirt on Larimer Square that LA doesn't own. So it's complicated, but that's certainly something we've looked at. Still a height restriction though, and if we were to connect to the Granite Building (1460) like they did with the Seed Buildings, we'd be held to four floors. That only adds about 27,000sf which helps, but by no means solves the problem.

[mr1138]

My 2 cents:

To me part of the reaction to the initial proposal might not have been about the density itself, but about the "boxy" massing of the towers shown and the general sense that some of Colorado's most historic architecture might be under threat. These are some of the best examples of gold-rush era commercial buildings in the state, probably better than those in Boulder's Pearl Street Mall or Central City, and the city lost several more city blocks of them only a few decades ago.

There is a charm to the historically fine-grained urban fabric of the structures and their parcels that could be partly lost of they are given the facetectomy treatment. Things like window frames, bricked-in cellars, and old painted advertisements add charm and help tell the story of the place. I think this may have been part of Dana Crawford's criticism as well. That great Denver Post graphic makes clear that not every part of every building is original, but a lot of them are. As a result, even the alleys have a historic charm in that you can see how each building is unique (and have masonry construction all the way to the rear). The little plaza at Bistro Vendome, for example, is actually quite a nice urban space. It may be that only architecture nerds currently think this way, but it is still a valid concern from a historic preservation standpoint, and there are opportunities to showcase these parts of the buildings to the public if some creative urban design were applied.

What about the possibility of redeveloping the (becoming dated) Larimer Square parking garage on Market Street, or perhaps purchasing and using some of the little historic buildings along Market as well? Dairy Block is a great example of what could be done. That way the back sides of the historic architecture could actually be displayed rather than demolished. There are probably other infill opportunities in the alley as well. Of course anything that isn't contributing to the historic district is fair game. Ocean Prime and Capitol Grill in particular seem like they could be rebuilt with more upstairs floors.

[SnyderBock]

Larimer Square https://imgur.com/gallery/WLVtXzG

Here is what I see is needed for area development.
The red is development/redevelopment, the blue is pedestrian activation corridors, and of course the historical buildings would all be renovated and have additional access added in from these new activated alleys. The idea would be to extend these pedestrian activated alleys to 16th Street Mall.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by JB1530

...We could aim for some kind of city-wide tax, or a massive package of tax credits, or some combination of the two, but there are no guarantees. Hence the more market-based proposal...

I don't understand this thinking of a more market based approach. Tax credits, of all kinds, are pretty market these days and I wouldn't consider them uncertain. Are they complicated? Absolutely. They take time and expertise, but they're not that difficult and the plethora of consultants out there would be happy to process it for you. Federal historic credits should be good for at least 15% of your overall capital stack. Unfortunately new market tax credits are out because you're a block off the eligible zone but you could potentially consider EB-5. Has the Larimer ownership looked at that?

If you could raise 25% of your capital stack in some form of soft financing or tax credit, would the deal be viable? If not, it would seem to me that something is not adding up unless there is some kind of truly extraordinary cost that is driving up the budget. That said, I have a hard time believing that is the case.

No need for direct messaging on this site, share the knowledge with everyone!

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Larimer Square https://imgur.com/gallery/WLVtXzG

Here is what I see is needed for area development.
The red is development/redevelopment, the blue is pedestrian activation corridors, and of course the historical buildings would all be renovated and have additional access added in from these new activated alleys. The idea would be to extend these pedestrian activated alleys to 16th Street Mall.

I like it.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Mired in scandal with a criminal investigation ongoing. So it's going to be delayed.

Trammell Crow is out and Mortenson has been disqualified. The city is going to take over management (yikes): https://www.denverpost.com/2019/02/1...investigation/

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by BG918

Trammell Crow is out and Mortenson has been disqualified. The city is going to take over management (yikes): https://www.denverpost.com/2019/02/1...investigation/

RTD does a nice job so why not the city?


Gotta say Ryan's photos on 16 Chestnut are better than average.
Building turned out well IMO.

[JB1530]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I don't understand this thinking of a more market based approach. Tax credits, of all kinds, are pretty market these days and I wouldn't consider them uncertain. Are they complicated? Absolutely. They take time and expertise, but they're not that difficult and the plethora of consultants out there would be happy to process it for you. Federal historic credits should be good for at least 15% of your overall capital stack. Unfortunately new market tax credits are out because you're a block off the eligible zone but you could potentially consider EB-5. Has the Larimer ownership looked at that?

If you could raise 25% of your capital stack in some form of soft financing or tax credit, would the deal be viable? If not, it would seem to me that something is not adding up unless there is some kind of truly extraordinary cost that is driving up the budget. That said, I have a hard time believing that is the case.

No need for direct messaging on this site, share the knowledge with everyone!

See - this is why I wanted to reach out to this group. Love informed conversation!

Fair point on EB-5. We have not evaluated that path at all. I will forward that idea to the analyst team to see how that could add to the capital stack.

The real challenge here is DSCR. Even with 25% of the capital stack in some form of 'soft money,' the other 75% needs to come from somewhere, and the property simply doesn't throw off enough cash flow to cover the debt service. I would characterize the costs as 'truly extraordinary,' generational types of costs, hence us looking to larger solutions.

[InfillJunkie]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Interesting -- yeah they have about 100 positions advertised in Denver right now (mostly AWS) so they must be ramping up rapidly. That compares to only 30 job listings in Boulder. Anyone know where the office actually is in Denver?

Yeah I get hit up weekly to work for them as a Technical Account Manager for AWS. No interest in working for Amazon.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by JB1530

See - this is why I wanted to reach out to this group. Love informed conversation!

Fair point on EB-5. We have not evaluated that path at all. I will forward that idea to the analyst team to see how that could add to the capital stack.

The real challenge here is DSCR. Even with 25% of the capital stack in some form of 'soft money,' the other 75% needs to come from somewhere, and the property simply doesn't throw off enough cash flow to cover the debt service. I would characterize the costs as 'truly extraordinary,' generational types of costs, hence us looking to larger solutions.

Question. Just how significant was the last remodel of Larimer Square in the 1970's? Was it somewhat of a slapdash remodel that didn't address the underlying structural issues and we're really not talking about 40 years of operation with no significant capital work outside of standard O&M but rather 100 years?

I think the narrative on Larimer Square is somewhat lost in that people don't understand just how old these buildings truly are and just what kind of work has been done in the past and what needs to be done now.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by InfillJunkie

Yeah I get hit up weekly to work for them as a Technical Account Manager for AWS. No interest in working for Amazon.

Next time they ask find out where the office is!