DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Thanks, Ryan! Now it is freaking time for Shelby's to finally be demolished. Curious what is taking so long. Maybe it might relate to that horrid condo bill currently being floated around the State legislature.

The project is still working it's way through the permitting process. Why start mobilizing if you're still months away from pulling permits?

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The project is still working it's way through the permitting process. Why start mobilizing if you're still months away from pulling permits?

Curious of the same thing as well..

More on the permits front:

Bell Tower - Going through more of the non-design review permitting processes. Just filed a Storm & Sanitary plan.

Convention Center Marriott - Just issued a permit to excavate and pour foundation.

1900 Lawrence - Filed a transportation plan today.

Evolve Towers - Site Development Plan filed

X Denver 3 - From a permitting side, it looks like construction should start any day.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Bell Tower - Going through more of the non-design review permitting processes. Just filed a Storm & Sanitary plan.

So they must feel they'll somehow, someway get past the design approval process?

If and when this ever breaks ground we should hold a BIG Party at wong's place.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You're the man! Your point about Skyland is well taken.


The way that laniroj talks is also what makes people very nervous about developers. He wants his cake and to eat it too - not that it is unreasonable from a developers perspective.

The City and the powers-that-be need to continue to define the rules and everybody that wants to live and work in Denver will find their way and a place to live.

The reality is there's no possible way that "everybody that wants to work in Denver will find their way and a place to live." Even more so, that's not a goal worth pursuing.

Look at this way, would you ever suggest that "everyone that wants to live and work in Cherry Hills" will be able to do so? Of course not, and that's also true for Denver.

I support many policies that will make it harder, if not impossible, for "some" people who would prefer to live in Denver (in the city or or the metro) to do so, such as :

1. Sufficient taxes to pay for a robust public transport system.
2. Zoning that limits certain property uses to pre-defined usage categories.
3. Height limits on buildings in many areas of the city.
4. Continued maintenance and expansion of parks, even if that takes land that could otherwise be used for housing.
5. Adhering to the principle that development should largely pay its way for infrastructure - whether' that's tap fees or streets and sewers.

Denver the city, has defined boundaries that are unlikely to ever expand. Only so much land. And even the metro doesn't have an endless supply of developable land, given challenges of water and infrastructure in our dusty cow town.

All of this adds to the costs of living in Denver, and of adding new housing. And unless you are in favor of construction anarchy - anyone can build anything, anywhere -then every person in this forum believes in the application of "rules" which in one way or another will prevent somone who would love to live here, from living here.

We just have disagreements about what the rules should be.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

The reality is there's no possible way that "everybody that wants to work in Denver will find their way and a place to live." Even more so, that's not a goal worth pursuing.

Look at this way, would you ever suggest that "everyone that wants to live and work in Cherry Hills" will be able to do so? Of course not, and that's also true for Denver.

I support many policies that will make it harder, if not impossible, for "some" people who would prefer to live in Denver (in the city or or the metro) to do so, such as :

1. Sufficient taxes to pay for a robust public transport system.
2. Zoning that limits certain property uses to pre-defined usage categories.
3. Height limits on buildings in many areas of the city.
4. Continued maintenance and expansion of parks, even if that takes land that could otherwise be used for housing.
5. Adhering to the principle that development should largely pay its way for infrastructure - whether' that's tap fees or streets and sewers.

Denver the city, has defined boundaries that are unlikely to ever expand. Only so much land. And even the metro doesn't have an endless supply of developable land, given challenges of water and infrastructure in our dusty cow town.

All of this adds to the costs of living in Denver, and of adding new housing. And unless you are in favor of construction anarchy - anyone can build anything, anywhere -then every person in this forum believes in the application of "rules" which in one way or another will prevent somone who would love to live here, from living here.

We just have disagreements about what the rules should be.

Do you think that a goal worth pursuing is to allow nurses, teachers, waiters/waitresses, and other service workers to live in Denver? Because this is what we're talking about. We're not talking about allowing every millionaire to live in Cherry Hills. We're talking about working class individuals being able to live within reasonable distance of their jobs rather than paying a huge chunk of their paycheck to live close or live farther away and pay a lot more for transportation costs. Affordability and scarcity hits these folks first and hardest because they can't compete with higher earners. I don't know what "construction anarchy" is, but upzoning the whole city would actually release pressure on gentrifying areas and allow more homes to be built in rich areas, which have already been dipped in amber by NIMBYs. I never thought I'd be on a skyscraper page forum long enough to see a majority of folks arguing for less housing.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I never thought I'd be on a skyscraper page forum long enough to see a majority of folks arguing for less housing.

Right! I thought I was going crazy. But this is a trending mentality. If you look at a lot of comments on news articles with high ticket items such River Mile and anything else development related, you see these comments everywhere. There's a larger-than-I-would-have-hoped-for crowd opposing things like McGregor Square, FFS. These people think that all the construction is causing rents / home prices to go up when in reality, it's pretty much a simple supply / demand market game. Rents are leveling off because of all the supply coming online.

In addition, all these buildings we said would be 'affordable housing in 5 years' are actually more affordable, what a shock. Hell, I live in one myself that we said, 'yep that'll be affordable in 5 years'. What are some other arguments? 'I'm sick of all these luxury apartments.' If all apartments are luxury none of them are, it's just the new building standard. It's all a marketing scheme. The list goes on..

What I fear most is that this crowd, and I even work with a chunk of these sad people, is that they would bend over backwards to get growth caps on the ballot. That scares the shit out of me.

#RantOver

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Do you think that a goal worth pursuing is to allow nurses, teachers, waiters/waitresses, and other service workers to live in Denver? Because this is what we're talking about. We're not talking about allowing every millionaire to live in Cherry Hills. We're talking about working class individuals being able to live within reasonable distance of their jobs rather than paying a huge chunk of their paycheck to live close or live farther away and pay a lot more for transportation costs. Affordability and scarcity hits these folks first and hardest because they can't compete with higher earners. I don't know what "construction anarchy" is, but upzoning the whole city would actually release pressure on gentrifying areas and allow more homes to be built in rich areas, which have already been dipped in amber by NIMBYs. I never thought I'd be on a skyscraper page forum long enough to see a majority of folks arguing for less housing.

Americans of all stripes are protectionists now. Protect us from immigrants taking our jobs and diluting our culture. Build a wall, ban muslims. Protect our neighborhood character from being threatened by lower income households. Enforce exclusionary zoning but keep adding amenities so I can live the streetcar suburbanite dream.

And frankly, construction anarchy is essentially what we had prior to WWII and especially prior to WWI. And it resulted in incredibly diverse, pragmatic, and desirable neighborhoods. Top down planning doesn't work in many sectors of the economy, and I'd argue no part of our economy is more centrally planned and prescribed than urban land use.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

If you go into the neighborhoods and look at who is developing the small infill, its realtors, builders, contractors, investors, locals, the majority of whom live in the same neighborhoods. And they are paying wages to workers and all that money is staying in the local economy. The greedy developer narrative is so tiresome.

[TakeFive]

Quick Story

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

The reality is there's no possible way that "everybody that wants to work in Denver will find their way and a place to live." Even more so, that's not a goal worth pursuing.

When working with a home buyer you want to find out what they want, what's important to them. I can't tell you how many times people end up buying something very different from what they thought they wanted. Once you start looking at real places in real neighborhoods preferences often evolve.

There's no way anybody could have read my mind based on what I stated. I didn't actually say everybody would be able to find a place 'in Denver'. But things have a way of working out for the best regardless of where they started and where they end up.

So it makes me curious if your post isn't a very carefully crafted tongue-in-cheek comment?

[Ich]

Im pretty surprised myself about the anti-development logic and those who kick and scream in defending it. It seems like rather selfish standpoint to take. Not only are you insistent on overriding individuals property rights, you without care influence market forces that increases land/ property costs. This whole I got mine so I am good mentality is pretty lame. When it comes to Five Points specifically, that stance becomes evermore absurd. Its a neighborhood that literally borders the CBD and yet some think that none of that should encroach on their emotional ties to the current state of the neighborhood. A neighborhood in which many of you helped gentrify (without care) and drastically drove up real estate costs. 15 years ago that was considered the ghetto of Denver and now we want to "preserve" the character of the neighborhood. Capital Hill and Cheeseman Park are both neighborhood where SFH, historical mansions, tall towers, row homes, and mid rise buildings coexist just fine. Its also one of the more affordable and diverse neighborhoods in central Denver. No one is advocating razing all of Curtis Park and building on top of it. If 3 of your neighbors decide to exercise their right to sell their property to a developer, then they should have that right. And if a developer want to build a mid rise on THEIR land, your irrelevant emotional stance should not impede that. If you want restriction and uniformity then move to Stapleton where you can live in a covenant controlled neighborhood. The ignorance on seeing how arguments like these drive up real estate cost speaks volumes around your intentions. Affordability within Denver is a very real problem and I don't believe we can stop it from rising but we can do things level it off.

We would agree global warming is an issue, yet your fights and policies advocate sprawl. But then you don't want to build more highways. You want more affordable housing but oh just not in my neighborhood. You want better transit, just to serve your preserved inner city SFH neighborhood. You hate parking and want minimums but just not in your neighborhood because then where will your visitors park? We should build more housing just somewhere else. Why not the multi million dollar lots downtown, I don't understand it? See they only build luxury homes on those. Thats what s driving up cost not because all the SFH neighborhoods protest any development... Its really narrow minded argument lol

When you do not open up land (developed or not) then you drive up the cost of the land that is. So yes there is infill space in Denver BUT because you selected or narrowed it down to specific sites, they get expensive.

Im sure none of this will mean much to you as you don't care much about any of the points above. You just want things your way.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Took a little drive around after work.

1). More equipment on the X3 site and it looks like something was recently demolished near the 21st Street side,

2). Rocky Mountain PBS looks 99% done which is exciting given that Kenect Denver and Modera Golden Triangle need it to finish before they can start, and

3). Matte black finish on 410 17th Street is finished. It doesn't look amazing but I prefer it to what was there previously.

[CONative]

Originally Posted by Ich

Im pretty surprised myself about the anti-development logic and those who kick and scream in defending it. It seems like rather selfish standpoint to take. Not only are you insistent on overriding individuals property rights, you without care influence market forces that increases land/ property costs. This whole I got mine so I am good mentality is pretty lame. When it comes to Five Points specifically, that stance becomes evermore absurd. Its a neighborhood that literally borders the CBD and yet some think that none of that should encroach on their emotional ties to the current state of the neighborhood. A neighborhood in which many of you helped gentrify (without care) and drastically drove up real estate costs. 15 years ago that was considered the ghetto of Denver and now we want to "preserve" the character of the neighborhood. Capital Hill and Cheeseman Park are both neighborhood where SFH, historical mansions, tall towers, row homes, and mid rise buildings coexist just fine. Its also one of the more affordable and diverse neighborhoods in central Denver. No one is advocating razing all of Curtis Park and building on top of it. If 3 of your neighbors decide to exercise their right to sell their property to a developer, then they should have that right. And if a developer want to build a mid rise on THEIR land, your irrelevant emotional stance should not impede that. If you want restriction and uniformity then move to Stapleton where you can live in a covenant controlled neighborhood. The ignorance on seeing how arguments like these drive up real estate cost speaks volumes around your intentions. Affordability within Denver is a very real problem and I don't believe we can stop it from rising but we can do things level it off.

We would agree global warming is an issue, yet your fights and policies advocate sprawl. But then you don't want to build more highways. You want more affordable housing but oh just not in my neighborhood. You want better transit, just to serve your preserved inner city SFH neighborhood. You hate parking and want minimums but just not in your neighborhood because then where will your visitors park? We should build more housing just somewhere else. Why not the multi million dollar lots downtown, I don't understand it? See they only build luxury homes on those. Thats what s driving up cost not because all the SFH neighborhoods protest any development... Its really narrow minded argument lol

When you do not open up land (developed or not) then you drive up the cost of the land that is. So yes there is infill space in Denver BUT because you selected or narrowed it down to specific sites, they get expensive.

Im sure none of this will mean much to you as you don't care much about any of the points above. You just want things your way.

Just a FYI... Stapleton is not really "covenant controlled". It does have a master HOA that is primarily there to take care of HOA parks/pools/parkways, take care of the HOA owned alleys, and put on events. All major rules and policies concerning properties are based off the City of Denver. You can paint your house pink if you want without approval and do whatever you want to your property-owned landscaping without approval. I added a balcony to my 2nd floor on my last Stapleton house and they told me I didn't need approval as long as the city approved it. Sub HOAs for things like townhomes are different, but that is the same in the rest of Denver. The farthest the HOA may go is remind a resident that they need to pull their 3 foot weeds or move a basketball hoop out of the way in the alley, but even that usually gets to the city as a complaint.

...and Stapleton is NOT uniform. I realize this is hard to believe for some that are stuck on the fact it's a new masterplanned development. You have all types of architecture (mega modern, simple modern, traditional, tudor, victorian, mediterranean, lofts, etc, etc, etc.) throughout the neighborhood and scattered for diversity (SF, townhomes, condos, apartments also often co-exist next to each other) -- with over 20 builders over its existence with far more than 100 different types of SF, townhome, condo, apartment, live-work, loft housing. If anything, older neighborhoods in Denver (Congress Park, Wash Park, etc) are more uniform with a lot of the same Denver Squares and bungalow styles over and over again (which is not so bad either). Also, things like separate dwellings above detached alley garages are already allowed and zoned in Stapleton....along with the residential areas being zoned RMU or CMU. In fact, I would bet that land in Stapleton would be approved for a multi-family building that previously has/had 3 houses on it ...before a lot of other older/central neighborhoods with the same scenario.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by CONative

Just a FYI... Stapleton is not really "covenant controlled". It does have a master HOA that is primarily there to take care of HOA parks/pools/parkways, take care of the HOA owned alleys, and put on events. All major rules and policies concerning properties are based off the City of Denver. You can paint your house pink if you want without approval and do whatever you want to your property-owned landscaping without approval. I added a balcony to my 2nd floor on my last Stapleton house and they told me I didn't need approval as long as the city approved it. Sub HOAs for things like townhomes are different, but that is the same in the rest of Denver. The farthest the HOA may go is remind a resident that they need to pull their 3 foot weeds or move a basketball hoop out of the way in the alley, but even that usually gets to the city as a complaint.

...and Stapleton is NOT uniform. I realize this is hard to believe for some that are stuck on the fact it's a new masterplanned development. You have all types of architecture (mega modern, simple modern, traditional, tudor, victorian, mediterranean, lofts, etc, etc, etc.) throughout the neighborhood and scattered for diversity (SF, townhomes, condos, apartments also often co-exist next to each other) -- with over 20 builders over its existence with far more than 100 different types of SF, townhome, condo, apartment, live-work, loft housing. If anything, older neighborhoods in Denver (Congress Park, Wash Park, etc) are more uniform with a lot of the same Denver Squares and bungalow styles over and over again (which is not so bad either). Also, things like separate dwellings above detached alley garages are already allowed and zoned in Stapleton....along with the residential areas being zoned RMU or CMU. In fact, I would bet that land in Stapleton would be approved for a multi-family building that previously has/had 3 houses on it ...before a lot of other older/central neighborhoods with the same scenario.

I'm with you on everything until "the older neighbors in Denver are more uniform." There are so many examples of an entire several blocks of KB paired homes, or an entire block of Thrive Single Family Houses that all look the same, or courtyards with the same Wonderlands on both sides, virtually identical. With that being said, I still like Stapleton. Back in the 20's an average builder would build like 2-3 houses a year.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RyanD

1900 Lawrence - Filed a transportation plan today.

This is actually encouraging; while not a biggie it means they're proceeding. It seems that a lot of preliminary work was actually done before they even closed on the land. So it will be interesting to see how speedy they put this skyscraper project together, not that planning and permitting is ever a speedy process.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

You know, it's super easy to pass an almost $800 million bond to pay for cleanup to allow development at Nat'l Western, sure. Bad example. This is a big problem though and it's why lots of vacant, industrial-adjacent land doesn't get developed. Many lenders won't even touch that ground for industrial development.

That’s not what pays for that. TIF pays for that.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That's city controlled land. Is a small-time local developer really going to get a bite out of that apple versus the big buys that are going to lock up the Triangle? I don't think so. I get where laniroj is going with his assertion that there's less land available for development than on first appearance coming from a transactional market perspective.

Well the little guys whining about rezoning risk and environmental risk and land price risk and [...] should go get accounting jobs anyways. They’re not ever putting a dent in affordability with their 1-2 projects per year. I’m interested in Forest City’s perspective or Revesco’s perspective. Their scale of building is what helps our affordability problem. Laniroj’s land scarcity problem is a capital and risk problem. I could just as easily say we don’t have an affordability problem - because if your price point is $1 million, we are just fine. Just as you say not everybody gets to live where they want, well, not every developer gets to build at the cost of entry that they want. I guess I should say, there is plenty of land AT THE RIGHT PRICE. If that’s not you, go to Aurora, Murphy Creek will sell you something to build on.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's about cost.

Scarcity is about what's on the market, not what can theoretically be redeveloped. Land gets very expensive even if development is a small percentage of the theoretical supply. This can be an exponential effect.

Remediation is expensive and brings up all sorts of risks, particularly if you're on the hook for any future spread of pollutants. Just figuring out various parties' responsibility and funding sources can be a major hurdle. We "can" but tough sites can stay empty for decades for this reason.

I think that’s the more coherent, not typed on the phone, version of what I just said.

Burnham Yard here is a good example. It’ll take some time, but it’ll more than pencil. Sure, guy off the streets who wants to buy land doesn’t have a chance. But it’s 60 acres - it’s still land, and a lot of it. If we are defining scarcity for conversation purposes as “how hard is it for the little guy developer to play,” that’s not the same thing.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

Land costs tend to be FAR more sensitive than construction costs. In my area land has tripled since the last peak, and much of that is specific to a lack of developable capacity, even while we could technically boom like this for many years.

That’s not here. We see single digit percentage increases for the most part. Still adds up, but not tripling... I assume because, well, no Amazon and no water. We have rail yards instead of oceans. And those have the lucky habit of turning into developable parcels over time.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

You can't mandate affordable units either. You can incentivize for them, but not mandate. People will simply leave the market if they HAVE to build affordable units which lead to them losing money. It's still a free country - unless Bernie is elected, then we'll be building commie blocks that are free for everyone!

Name me a recent development agreement in Denver that doesn’t mandate affordable housing now. They all do.

As for environmental - how would you say Revesco is going to do River Mile? It’s certainly contaminated. They have an 18% affordable requirement. By your logic, it should be impossible. Are they just better at it than you?

[bulldurhamer]

The Cole grocery store site has a fence around it now.