DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

The pot is stirring, the stew is brewing


Courtesy Sara Hertwig April 30, 2022 for The Denver Gazette

Elitch Gardens plans to move, with Aurora on its list of possible landing sites
Aug 16, 2023 By Kyla Pearce - The Denver Gazette

The amusement park will relocate, Revesco Properties officials said, but the property management company hasn't decided where yet.

Given Aurora's location, with room to expand, and city officials' desire to expand its entertainment opportunities with the Gaylord Rockies Resort and Conference Center, the city is in the running for the amusement park's next home.

Revesco Properties' spokesperson Julia Oblack said the company is actively looking for a site for a new Elitch Gardens location in metro Denver. "We have been in discussions with a number of jurisdictions who may have suitable sites," Oblack said.

Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman has been in communication with Kroenke Sports and Entertainment, which co-owns the property, in recent months to discuss the possibility of the amusement park re-locating to Aurora. Their plan, if Aurora is chosen, would be to put Elitch Gardens in the Adams County portion of northeast Aurora just west of E-470, Coffman said.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bobg

I do not work at or for DOTI which is why I don't know what was said, and am trying to understand the rationale before jumping to conclusions.

Do you know why they nixed it? Or know where that communication can be found?

You could submit a CORA (colorado open records act) request to DOTI - to release their emails regarding the curb cut. That would certainly stir some feathers.

Mid-block curb cuts as a standard, as Ryan D referred to, are not allowed. Even when redevelopment occurs on properties which have an existing mid-block curb cut or existing curb cut too close to an intersection, DOTI will require they be eliminated to meet current "standards". As Ryan eludes to "absolutes" are the new way of governing at any expense.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The pot is stirring, the stew is brewing


Courtesy Sara Hertwig April 30, 2022 for The Denver Gazette

Elitch Gardens plans to move, with Aurora on its list of possible landing sites
Aug 16, 2023 By Kyla Pearce - The Denver Gazette

If it moves out there to the hail/tornado zone, hopefully they can expand it to be more like a Six Flags-sized amusement park. I still love the current location though.

And hopefully they get that unicorn trail to the airport installed to help manage the traffic problems on Pena before a new Elitch's opens.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Huh? There's a 1.5 lane buffer (bus lane) between the sidewalk and all that vehicle "traffic" you're talking about. This is not a vehicle/pedestrian interface safety thing. The # vehicle trips a project like this would generate would be negligible in that aspect. This is a 16' alley just like all the others, but 600 17th Street is maybe setback an extra 2' for whatever reason.

No part of Downtown Denver is chaotic, at least not comparatively with other large cities. For one, it's only remotely busy for 3 hours per day, half in morning and half at night. Two, 17th Street has almost no traffic for a big city downtown street. Many areas of the western world are much busier with vehicles AND pedestrians and manage to get by with all smorgasbord or curb cuts, loading zones, buses, trains, and LOTS of vehicles/people interfacing.

Do you work for DOTI?!?! My apologies in advance.

Originally Posted by laniroj

You could submit a CORA (colorado open records act) request to DOTI - to release their emails regarding the curb cut. That would certainly stir some feathers.

Mid-block curb cuts as a standard, as Ryan D referred to, are not allowed. Even when redevelopment occurs on properties which have an existing mid-block curb cut or existing curb cut too close to an intersection, DOTI will require they be eliminated to meet current "standards". As Ryan eludes to "absolutes" are the new way of governing at any expense.

Ugh was hoping someone would say it's attached to the site development plan review and you can access it at some place I wasn't aware of (don't do development). Will look into submitting one over the weekend.

Don't get me wrong I wholeheartedly agree with that standard on curbcuts. I've lived overseas and travelled extensively, so Ive seen the value in limiting them, and when allowing them putting them on low volume low speed streets where possible. As I stated previously my inclination would be to support DOTI on this particular site as well. But they should at a minimum be giving deviations from the standard real consideration.

[TakeFive]

With respect to 650 17th St

I did see where Greystar is out of the deal. I had assumed they were considering being a developer-partner but in any case they clearly decided it wasn't worth chasing. My guess is that Harbinger isn't really interested in developing the site either (at this point). I'm assuming they want to secure entitlement approval to be in a better position to sell the property-project.

The one happy party attached to that site is Buzz Geller's investment group.

Originally Posted by COtoOC

If it moves out there to the hail/tornado zone, hopefully they can expand it to be more like a Six Flags-sized amusement park. I still love the current location though.

And hopefully they get that unicorn trail to the airport installed to help manage the traffic problems on Pena before a new Elitch's opens.

That's a good question. What kind of amusement park are they even interested in. Given that Kroenke is involved I'm guessing they would also be interested in additional development opportunities along with the new Elitch's (but maybe not).

I did see where the anti-car crowd thinks people should use buses to the airport - if not the train. It's as though they assume everybody on Pena Blvd is going to the airport. Apparently a growing amount of traffic is NOT; it's local traffic. With business travelers few would have any interest in taking a bus; they want door-to-door rideshare service both for its convenience and reliability.

[Robert.hampton]

9 months in Denver has a website to let you know how high your absurd sidewalk fees will be. But they have no idea how much it will cost to implement. No idea when they’ll start implementing. No idea when the plan for implementation will be created. No idea how long it will take to implement. And every property owner has ceased to maintain their sidewalk in the city.

What a cluster fuck and a stupid ass counter productive ballot initiative.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I've made my fair share of DOTI comments on this forum and appreciate you pointing this entity out for what it has become - which is a static entity with no employee empowerment to make reasonable decisions which leads to DOTI singlehandedly killing projects and/or making them worse. DOTI is the biggest obstacle to development in Denver, hands down, after lack of appropriately zoned land.

Originally Posted by bobg

Do you know where I can find a link to the details on that back and forth? I only know what's been mentioned on this forum

Generally the curb cuts and curb space downtown is chaotic, and adding to that chaos isn't good (especially on a road people routinely speed on like 17th). There's a very busy bus stop on 17th/california adjacent to an even busier 17th st bus lane, and of course the light rail on California which makes it hard to find an obvious place for a curb cut. Having had an office on the other side of the alley I know that alley is very wide already to accommodate the angled loading zone.

I'd be inclined to agree with DOTI on the surface, but the devil is always in the details.

Originally Posted by rds70

The plan for this building does show a curb cut directly adjacent to the alley. However, this proposal does not have access to the alley like the previous version. I don’t know if that will make a difference?

All of the correspondence is in e-Permits. If you create an account (free) you can access all of the documents. The particular record is 2022-TRAN-0000159. I see it's approved now so maybe there was a change or heart but this was lingering for months before moving on.. Here's a link to the full response letter that I found if you are curious:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KXJDmm7tzZ6KpjummLf1pirdwgJTa0ux/view?usp=sharing

I agree that adding curb space is chaotic but because of deliveries in the alley, it does leave it blocked for access. Remember, there's a Target there that gets regular deliveries. They have the traffic study in the records showing exactly that, two trucks blocking the alley for a length of time that would not allow access to the building. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect city where people don't need cars, we can only wish. So, Greystar wanted to curb cut right next to the alley so... you know... their building wouldn't get blocked by deliveries, but it didn't seem like DOTI was budging on it. Rumor has it that's what killed that project, which is completely unacceptable.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RyanD

All of the correspondence is in e-Permits. If you create an account (free) you can access all of the documents. The particular record is 2022-TRAN-0000159. I see it's approved now so maybe there was a change or heart but this was lingering for months before moving on.. Here's a link to the full response letter that I found if you are curious:

Fascinating read; I was surprised that I was able to follow along for the most part considering the level of detail.

Couldn't help but think about at least two properties that have curb cuts for valet service - but not resident parking access - although one's a hotel. Tons of rideshare and/or van drops/pickups though. Being in downtown - old town Scottsdale there tons of traffic but not as much transit certainly.

I agree with you that a curb cut is necessary and I doubt it will be that much of an issue in reality.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by RyanD

All of the correspondence is in e-Permits. If you create an account (free) you can access all of the documents. The particular record is 2022-TRAN-0000159. I see it's approved now so maybe there was a change or heart but this was lingering for months before moving on.. Here's a link to the full response letter that I found if you are curious:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KXJDmm7tzZ6KpjummLf1pirdwgJTa0ux/view?usp=sharing

I agree that adding curb space is chaotic but because of deliveries in the alley, it does leave it blocked for access. Remember, there's a Target there that gets regular deliveries. They have the traffic study in the records showing exactly that, two trucks blocking the alley for a length of time that would not allow access to the building. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect city where people don't need cars, we can only wish. So, Greystar wanted to curb cut right next to the alley so... you know... their building wouldn't get blocked by deliveries, but it didn't seem like DOTI was budging on it. Rumor has it that's what killed that project, which is completely unacceptable.

Thank you so much for the link, explanation, and how to access for future reference (and saving me from wasting money on a Cora request). You are awesome.

I knew Target was using that alley, I didn't know to what extent they monopolized it. That would be tough if not impossible to work around, and for Greystar to use that as access.

It sounds like they were pushing for moving the Z bus stop closer to Welton but DOTI was a little apprehensive due to the turning movements with the now two way Welton(which
IIRC was done at the request of Target). I was wondering about that the other day because of the routine bus bunching and the 0 being articulated, space would likely be insufficient with another curbcut, and the other side of the alley should be a turn lane.

Tough nut to crack for sure, but I get where you're coming from on it.

[RyanD]

Glad I saved you a CORA request. It’s a tough one but not a problem that can’t be worked especially when we are leaving that much density on the table. Greystar is a developer that would have probably pulled the trigger, and we would have had a 40+ story tower, with all of that housing we are always short of, underway.

[i4isoar]

Re 650 17th Street

I have mixed feelings about all of this.

On one hand, it's nice to see that awful parking lot finally gave way to a skyscraper. I kinda like the look of it - it looks like a miniaturized Republic Plaza, but it's still pretty tall, just a little bit taller than 1900 Lawrence. And I appreciate that despite being 100' shorter than the previous proposal, it still somehow has more units, something downtown sorely needs. If they start on it now, it'll likely get finished in time for 16th Street reopening.

On the other hand... after all the news and buzz going back years, I'm disappointed not to see anything taller than 500' on that site. I can't believe that what killed the previous iteration was a frivolous curb-cut issue. I understand the issues that lot has, with the light rail, bus stop, and Target loading/unloading, but I can't imagine that the curb-cut would have been any worse than the mess DOTI has already created on 17th these days. Maybe I'm venting here, but I feel that there is a lot of incompetence permeating every level of our city government these days.

Still, thank you Ryan for the info; I guess the curb cut issue illustrates that a supertall was never going to happen on that site, short of someone demolishing the Target and joining both lots into a single one. Here's hoping that one of the other surface parking lots around downtown will one day be home to Denver's answer to Austin, Texas. I think some of the lots along Lincoln would be prime candidates for that.

[DenverInfill]

I think it's an attractive tower and am eager to see it added to the skyline. Supertall/new-tallest is fine if it happens but to me, that is a very minor consideration versus replacing a surface parking lot with what is still a substantial addition to the skyline. Bring it on!

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

9 months in Denver has a website to let you know how high your absurd sidewalk fees will be. But they have no idea how much it will cost to implement. No idea when they’ll start implementing. No idea when the plan for implementation will be created. No idea how long it will take to implement. And every property owner has ceased to maintain their sidewalk in the city.

What a cluster fuck and a stupid ass counter productive ballot initiative.

Yes, it's kind of dumb but looking around with the tool none of the fees are over a couple hundred bucks (and that is for a corner lot). So unless you have an entire block it usually isn't an extreme cost, at least compared to the cost of completely replacing the sidewalk yourself. And remember that this all came about because no one was maintaining their sidewalks before. People only repaired them when it was absolutely necessary and they had completely disintegrated, if at all. All it took was one neighbor who wouldn't or couldn't repair their sidewalk and you have a barrier to accessibility (and in the case of Cap Hill's flagstone sidewalks an instant tripping hazard)

[TakeFive]

Let's Re-Imagine Downtown Denver



POINT

Originally Posted by TakeFive

https://kdvr.com/news/local/16-downtown-...sidered-as-possible-housing-conversions/

COUNTER-POINT

https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/off...-demolition-conversion-challenges-120234

With hope for a full-fledged return to office fading, the conversation around underused office buildings in cities nationwide has largely featured the idea of converting them into housing...

It may seem like an extreme step, but as expectations for full Class-B and C offices crumble and renovation costs climb, demolishing buildings to free up the land under them for a new use is gaining traction.

Kyle Bass, founder of Dallas-based Hayman Capital Management, told Fortune magazine in April that office is “one asset class that just has to get redone, and redone meaning demolished,” citing the difficulty of converting office to multifamily.

Class-B and C Office Buildings

Retaining some of these buildings makes sense as a part of the product mix by appealing to those who desire more attractive lease rates.

For Example: Republic Plaza says: "Don't count us out yet" as they extended their loan by three years. If they can lease up more space then the 'current' value of property will go up.

Out of 21 properties, Gensler identified 5 buildings not suitable for conversion (to residential). Of these 5 either they're worth retaining or Cue the Wrecking Ball.

Of the remaining 16 prospective conversions, either they are determined to be economically feasible or Cue the Wrecking Ball.

Summary

Out of 21 building initially analyzed lets conclude (for grins) that one-third are worth keeping as more affordable office space options; one-third are deemed economically feasible to convert to residential; and one-third need to order the wrecking ball.

Conclusion

Over the next decade (we'll speculate) there could be ~15 new residential towers in downtown Denver.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Yes, it's kind of dumb but looking around with the tool none of the fees are over a couple hundred bucks (and that is for a corner lot). So unless you have an entire block it usually isn't an extreme cost, at least compared to the cost of completely replacing the sidewalk yourself. And remember that this all came about because no one was maintaining their sidewalks before. People only repaired them when it was absolutely necessary and they had completely disintegrated, if at all. All it took was one neighbor who wouldn't or couldn't repair their sidewalk and you have a barrier to accessibility (and in the case of Cap Hill's flagstone sidewalks an instant tripping hazard)

Paying a couple hundred bucks per year to have your sidewalk deteriorate while the city does nothing is a terrible deal. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind this initiative will make Denver’s sidewalks far worse for the next 10-15 years. Never mind that I could replace my entire sidewalk multiple times in the next 40 years for the fees I’m being assessed by the city - and would guess at best I’ll get maybe 2-3 slabs with some cheap repairs instead.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Paying a couple hundred bucks per year to have your sidewalk deteriorate while the city does nothing is a terrible deal. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind this initiative will make Denver’s sidewalks far worse for the next 10-15 years. Never mind that I could replace my entire sidewalk multiple times in the next 40 years for the fees I’m being assessed by the city - and would guess at best I’ll get maybe 2-3 slabs with some cheap repairs instead.

I live on a corner and after seeing what my fee would be, that was my exact thought. I could replace my entire sidewalk every ten years for cheaper than the fee. My sidewalk is 18 years old and just fine.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

[SIZE="3"]


That's a good question. What kind of amusement park are they even interested in. Given that Kroenke is involved I'm guessing they would also be interested in additional development opportunities along with the new Elitch's (but maybe not).

I did see where the anti-car crowd thinks people should use buses to the airport - if not the train. It's as though they assume everybody on Pena Blvd is going to the airport. Apparently a growing amount of traffic is NOT; it's local traffic. With business travelers few would have any interest in taking a bus; they want door-to-door rideshare service both for its convenience and reliability.

I was reading comments related to the Pena traffic problem and there were people thinking we just need to run the train every ten minutes and that'll solve the problem. I live in Central Park and do usually take the train (because it's just easier), but I have to have someone drive me over to the train station and pick me up. Usually not an issue, but no way am I leaving my car at the park and ride these days with all the car/cat converter theft. Maybe secure parking would help.

Then you have the "induced demand" people screaming. I pointed out that when the road was built, the airport had way fewer flights, the metro area population was way lower, and there was little out there other than the airport. Pena worked just fine for a very long time.

As the airport continues to expand, business and housing out near the airport continue to expand, so must Pena. It's not like they need to rip out neighborhoods to add lanes. And complaints about pollution.... well, we're seeing more and more hybrids/electrics on the road and that will continue and eventually offset pollution concerns to some extent. The A line is part of the solution, but not THE solution.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I was reading comments related to the Pena traffic problem and there were people thinking we just need to run the train every ten minutes and that'll solve the problem. I live in Central Park and do usually take the train (because it's just easier), but I have to have someone drive me over to the train station and pick me up. Usually not an issue, but no way am I leaving my car at the park and ride these days with all the car/cat converter theft. Maybe secure parking would help.

Then you have the "induced demand" people screaming. I pointed out that when the road was built, the airport had way fewer flights, the metro area population was way lower, and there was little out there other than the airport. Pena worked just fine for a very long time.

As the airport continues to expand, business and housing out near the airport continue to expand, so must Pena. It's not like they need to rip out neighborhoods to add lanes. And complaints about pollution.... well, we're seeing more and more hybrids/electrics on the road and that will continue and eventually offset pollution concerns to some extent. The A line is part of the solution, but not THE solution.

The induced demand people are 100% on point. It's not a capacity issue. E470 has more than adequate capacity to cover the growth in the area while still getting people to/from the airport, the A Line has more than enough capacity to get more people to/from the more central parts of Denver. E470 and the A Line are perceived to be expensive, while Pena is free to use and managed lanes have been shown to have an inducement effect because there's still the hope of free to use. In short if Pena Blvd was tolled like e470 I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

There's a couple of reasons this is even more controversial:
1) Hancock tried to ram this through to a point of no return in his last few months in office, skipping steps he would never allow DOTI to skip in a project of this magnitude.
2) No realistic alternatives are being studied other than what we know they are going to chose from the master plan.
3) The growth in traffic problem isn't as much from the airport as it is the residential/commercial outside the airport, which gets back to the e470 vs a line vs Pena perceived cost.
4) The FAA rightly called out the airport on where that growth in non airport traffic is coming from, the airport as of now is turning to Denver to fill the gaps in what the FAA is allowing the airport to fund, the problem is most of that growth at this point will occur outside of Denver(it's the stock show all over again)
5) The ghg rules make this type of expansion difficult without an offset on state highways (because they know the rate of hybrid and ev adoption is low). So we now have the most liberal city in the state doing something the state itself would not allow, in order to subsidize sprawl in Aurora and Commerce City


I'm not sure I agree with their focus on improving the A line, but I think there's a lot of reasons to put the brakes on this, and come up with a more equitable solution.

[mr1138]

I tend to agree that the solution to traffic on Pena cannot possibly be all about the A line. But I also feel like there are improvements to increase its usefulness that could be made beyond just double-tracking the line to increase frequency that perhaps aren't currently being discussed.

For example, what would happen if the airport consolidated all of the official remote surface parking into a single structure right next to one of the A-line stations? 40th and Airport would be ideal (to intercept vehicles closer to I-70), but since that station is in Aurora, 61st and Pena could work too. Theft at a park-n-ride is a legitimate concern, but then again, people leave their cars in DIA remote lots all the time (where they are also subject to hail damage). Perhaps people might feel more comfortable parking at an A-line station if it were operated and secured as official airport parking? Add in a dedicated exit/entrance ramp from Pena directly into a new remote parking garage for convenience and I bet people would use it.

The other thing that I'm not sure is being explored would be to consolidate rental-car operations into a better facility like the new LAX Consolidated Rent-A-Car that could interface with an A-line station somewhere along 78th Avenue. This one seems obvious and I'm kind of surprised it wasn't planned for as a part of the original A-line.

Consolidating either remote parking or the rent-a-car sprawl also have the potential to remove a lot of those slow, inefficient shuttles from the equation. As it is, I often choose to take my chances with the Central Park park-n-ride over airport remote parking just to avoid those awful shuttle connections.

Would this eliminate the need for a 3rd lane on Pena? Maybe not - that's for people who look at traffic studies to decide (I'm not convinced the traffic is currently bad enough to demand a 3rd lane). The arguments about induced demand and carefully considering where we want to invest in expanding capacity are legitimate though.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

The other thing that I'm not sure is being explored would be to consolidate rental-car operations into a better facility like the new LAX Consolidated Rent-A-Car that could interface with an A-line station somewhere along 78th Avenue. This one seems obvious and I'm kind of surprised it wasn't planned for as a part of the original A-line.

You'll be happy to know that DEN is in the early planning stages for a consolidated rental car facility:

Denver airport is set to nearly triple car rental fee as it considers building large new facility

I think the current concept would be a people mover or shuttle service from the terminal to the facility, which would make sense given the frequency of service, probably 5-10 minutes, that would be desired and what the A-Line couldn't provide.

EDIT: Found this presentation on the DEN website which shows where the locations where the consolidated facility is being considered. Looks as if the airport is indeed considering a people mover to move passengers.