DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

https://kdvr.com/news/local/uniteds-fili...-signal-possible-hq-move-out-of-chicago/

Here's a direct link to the site master plan:

https://kdvr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2025/02/United-Airlines-Denver-filing.pdf

Certainly looks like the possibility of a new HQ campus (such as keeping the parcels with the best damn viewplanes open for now). Pena Blvd anti-expansion candidates will be pissed.

[TakeFive]

............

Honey; they got their money

$112M Loan Secured For Capitol Hill Multifamily Project
February 5, 2025 By Jonathan Rose, Denver

Kaia Residences -- 808 Lincoln Street


Courtesy Trailbreak Partners

Denver-based Trailbreak Partners secured a $111.5M construction loan from Affinius Capital to develop Kaia Residences, an 18-story, 295-unit multifamily project at 808 N. Lincoln St. Denver's Capitol Hill neighborhood.

The development will feature studio to three-bedroom apartments, street-level retail, upscale amenities and 290 parking spaces.

Not sure all the details but guessing Affinius Capital is an equity partner as one piece. Also not sure when shovels hit the ground.

[AHS1983]

If GSA plans come to fruition, how much space in Denver metro could come onto the market?

Looking over the list, I see some that could be sold off.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by AHS1983

If GSA plans come to fruition, how much space in Denver metro could come onto the market?

Looking over the list, I see some that could be sold off.

This stuff is better than the clown show at the Circus!

I think it was a CPR piece that suggested they could sell the Federal Center in Lakewood - but it's D.C. that will be the bigger focus; I've read that several leases have been cancelled in buildings barely occupied.

Despite the noise and relative speed it will likely take some time to sort out. I'm guessing Denver/Colorado will be impacted some but perhaps not all that much?

[TakeFive]

Wellness-Focused Wilder Opens in Denver
February 10, 2025 -- Mile High CRE

The Max Collaborative announced the grand opening of Wilder, a new apartment home community on West Colfax Avenue in Denver. Designed by Davis Partnership Architects, Wilder features Art Deco-inspired architecture and an expansive art program designed to connect residents and invoke a sense of community. Located at 1521 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 Street just one mile west of downtown, Wilder is available to lease.

Over 400 pieces of art were curated for Wilder by NINE dot ARTS, a Denver-based, women-owned art consultancy that advocates for both art and artists, adding to the community connection and overall artistic-forward design of the project.

Wilder - 1521 N 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 St Denver




Images Courtesy Max Collaborative

Quick Bckstory:

Max Collaborative, for their 1st Denver project built One River North and for their 2nd Act they built The Broadleaf at Fitzsimons and now the Wilder.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by AHS1983

If GSA plans come to fruition, how much space in Denver metro could come onto the market?

Looking over the list, I see some that could be sold off.

These two right here come to mind right away:

Federal Garage Building
2106 California Street
Denver, CO 80205-2822Federal Garage Building
2101 Welton Street
Denver, CO 80205-2808

[AHS1983]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

These two right here come to mind right away:

Federal Garage Building
2106 California Street
Denver, CO 80205-2822
Federal Garage Building
2101 Welton Street
Denver, CO 80205-2808

Apple Maps shows both surrounded with tents. Nice.

[DenvertoLA]

All this development here makes me pissed RTD didn’t build the W line on Colfax.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Wellness-Focused Wilder Opens in Denver
February 10, 2025 -- Mile High CRE


Wilder - 1521 N 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 St Denver




Images Courtesy Max Collaborative

Quick Bckstory:

Max Collaborative, for their 1st Denver project built One River North and for their 2nd Act they built The Broadleaf at Fitzsimons and now the Wilder.

[TakeFive]

Hard to disagree

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

All this development here makes me pissed RTD didn’t build the W line on Colfax.

Interestingly, if you go way back to the late 1970's when they first started thinking about light rail they were looking at MLK Blvd and West Colfax. The blacks who lived along MLK Blvd went crazy with disdain. They now had cars they drove; they might be dinged here, a dent there but they spent weekends shining up their rides. They found the light rail proposal insulting as if sending them to the 'back of the buss' all over again. With west Colfax the issues were different but 'back then' nobody wanted light rail.

Although not everybody likes the current FasTracks corridors I'm sure they wanted to avoid any prolonged fights against light rail routes so we get what we got.

[TakeFive]

With respect to renaming the 16th Street Mall
Feb. 17, 2025 By Kyle Harris -- Denverite


Photo courtesy Catie Cheshire -- Westword

I'm voting for Mark Barnshouse to be the Mayor of Downtown

Mark Barnhouse, who wrote the only book about 16th Street, said renaming the street is misguided.

“All of the suggestions for renaming the 16th Street Mall are bad ones, no different from DEN for DIA or any of the corporate-sponsored renamings of what everyone (that I know, anyway) still calls Mile High Stadium,” he wrote.“It’s basically impossible to get people to accept a name change, especially one that has been in use since the late 1970s,” he wrote.

Uncommon wisdom that Mark Barnhouse.

And Barnhouse doesn’t believe rebranding is how the Downtown Denver Partnership should address the perception of crime.

“I don’t care how many expensive consultants DDP uses, anyone who says a rebranding will bring people back down is just taking easy money from gullible people,” Barnhouse wrote. “What will bring people downtown is going back to basics: reduce crime, get the randomly shouting, off-their-meds people off of the mall, and find a way to subsidize rents so that restaurants and shops can afford to stay open.”

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With respect to renaming the 16th Street Mall
Feb. 17, 2025 By Kyle Harris -- Denverite


Photo courtesy Catie Cheshire -- Westword

I'm voting for Mark Barnshouse to be the Mayor of Downtown

Uncommon wisdom that Mark Barnhouse.

I couldn't agree more with him on that!! Get the crazies off the Mall and it'll do so much better.

That said, I was down there last weekend to eat dinner (mall-adjacent) and didn't see anything odd anywhere. Restaurant wasn't super busy, but we were on the early side. And it wasn't a cheap place to eat at all.

[mhays]

The 16th Street Mall has name recognition. Not like Park Avenue or anything, but still pretty good. Renaming it might cause more confusion than any benefit.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...Although not everybody likes the current FasTracks corridors I'm sure they wanted to avoid any prolonged fights against light rail routes so we get what we got.

I've never understood why the light rail layout in Denver gets so much hate. It's where it COULD go and it got there relatively affordably. The alternative would have been 10x the price. People think of subways when they look at light rail and its apples v oranges. The criticism of RTD should be they never connected the center city nor did they provide adequate routing/frequency to feed into the light rail. Instead, they built huge parking lots next to RTDs to make it the most convenient to the most successful amongst us - that should be the real rub.

I'm more and more pleased with the development happening along light rail each passing year. I remember when the bellview stop was nothing but land. It's an amazingly dense TOD now in roughly 20 years - that's incredible pace! Obviously that hasn't happened at all TODs and there is MUCH room for improvement, but the light rail is densifying far and wide and it will get better over time. I compare it to the retail follows rooftops equation. The light rail ridership will get better if/when density along the route reaches critical mass...we're not close to that yet. If we add 500,000 people within 1 mile of TODs over the next decade, we'll start to see some improvement in ridership.

[DenvertoLA]

Yeah, my problem with FastTracks is that it’s a rail system built for car drivers, not for people who don’t have cars. The stations are in the middle of nowhere. Take, for instance, the West Line—RTD has to run a redundant bus line on West Colfax because people would rather take a convenient bus than a billion-dollar train that is inconvenient.

I would rather have a more limited rail system that serves urban hubs of activity where people don’t need cars at all than an expansive system that might one day be useful if billions of dollars of development are built around the nowhereville stations.

I also question the quality of communities transit-oriented developments (TODs) create. It seems like the best aspect of them is the ability to leave... which doesn’t seem promising.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Yeah, my problem with FastTracks is that it’s a rail system built for car drivers, not for people who don’t have cars. The stations are in the middle of nowhere. Take, for instance, the West Line—RTD has to run a redundant bus line on West Colfax because people would rather take a convenient bus than a billion-dollar train that is inconvenient.

I would rather have a more limited rail system that serves urban hubs of activity where people don’t need cars at all than an expansive system that might one day be useful if billions of dollars of development are built around the nowhereville stations.

I also question the quality of communities transit-oriented developments (TODs) create. It seems like the best aspect of them is the ability to leave... which doesn’t seem promising.

Huh? If we did what you wanted, the price of that system would be 10x what we paid for ours and more importantly, it NEVER would have happened. It's a good system that CAN one day serve a very useful purpose. It could serve a useful purpose now if RTD gave up some of the suburban bus service in favor of more dense/urban transit. Hell, Denver could step up to the plate with their own transit connections program if they'd stop wasting so much damn money on needless shite.

Government can afford to think generationally and fastracks will be a huge asset forever. It will take decades and that's ok because it's certainly better than having nothing. Light rail has changed development patterns which have now concentrated along the light rail - this is the same as how development patterns changed with the interstate highway system. Those urban hubs you rdesire and the density that comes with it is happening along light rail though not as fast a people want it to - here's a pro tip...show up to City Council hearings en masse and scream loud to change zoning around TODs and we'll make faster progress. Ridership will follow...one day...if all the cities and towns don't shut out density completely in favor of effing single family homes.

As to RTD's parking strategy, I like it. They built the system and have land banked many parcels which will be extraordinarily valuable one day. They need to get their shite together to allow for land sales for very dense projects (>20 stories). If cities won't accommodate zoning, Trump's GSA should take the land over and lease it to developers...federal government doesn't HAVE to abide by local zoning. Federal dollars made these projects happen and the federal government should demand change to how the land around those investments is being managed. I'm done with the local zoning - it's never going to sort itself out and these cities/town are wreaking havoc on housing affordability for generations of americans. It's not cool.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Yeah, my problem with FastTracks is that it’s a rail system built for car drivers, not for people who don’t have cars. The stations are in the middle of nowhere. Take, for instance, the West Line—RTD has to run a redundant bus line on West Colfax because people would rather take a convenient bus than a billion-dollar train that is inconvenient.

The West Line is the only FasTracks line that was built along a pre-existing streetcar line route making it a poor example as it is pretty damn well integrated with the neighborhoods which is hardly being the middle of nowhere. Having a bus line along Colfax for local stops makes sense, but it was asinine when they also had the limited running along Colfax that did cannibalize ridership. Fortunately RTD killed that route, but that might also have been a cause of the increase in drug addicts riding the W-Line.

It's three block from Colfax to Sloan's Lake, which you don't hear people complain about to access, and it's three blocks from Colfax to the West Line. Distance wise it's not a big deal, though the West Line does go through the seedier, i.e south of, part of the Colfax corridor versus the gentrified area of Sloan's Lake. So I get that perception issue.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I've never understood why the light rail layout in Denver gets so much hate. It's where it COULD go and it got there relatively affordably. The alternative would have been 10x the price. People think of subways when they look at light rail and its apples v oranges. The criticism of RTD should be they never connected the center city nor did they provide adequate routing/frequency to feed into the light rail. Instead, they built huge parking lots next to RTDs to make it the most convenient to the most successful amongst us - that should be the real rub.

I'm more and more pleased with the development happening along light rail each passing year. I remember when the bellview stop was nothing but land. It's an amazingly dense TOD now in roughly 20 years - that's incredible pace! Obviously that hasn't happened at all TODs and there is MUCH room for improvement, but the light rail is densifying far and wide and it will get better over time. I compare it to the retail follows rooftops equation. The light rail ridership will get better if/when density along the route reaches critical mass...we're not close to that yet. If we add 500,000 people within 1 mile of TODs over the next decade, we'll start to see some improvement in ridership.

I have always shared this same enthusiasm for the potential for TOD to make the system that Denver has built more and more useful over time - so much so that I moved to Olde Town Arvada because I believed in this possible future for our metro area.

Unfortunately, what I have since come to discover, is that suburban communities, their council members, and the planners that work for them simply do not share this sense of optimism about TOD.

CPR recently ran a story about this. Last month, I watched with dismay as the clear majority of Arvada City Council signaled at their study session that they do not intend to implement any land use reforms near transit, and they also do not feel the need to actually engage with the community about this. There has not been a single public meeting, no outreach page on speakuparvada.com (which the city hasn't used for a single project in months), and they are not widely publicizing City Council's discussions about the land use legislation ahead of their hearings.

Instead they say things like "Our [current parking] code definitely matches the character of our community." And claim that Arvada shouldn't have to build more density, because the G-Line currently only runs every 30 minutes (nevermind the fact that we actually GOT OUR TRAIN - subsidised by the entire metro area - when other FasTracks routes still have not been completed).

To make such sweeping policy decisions without doing ANY engagement with the community first sends a pretty clear message. When they say "home rule" and "local control," they mean THEIR personal control - they don't actually intend to have this policy discussion with the community. DOLA should definitely pay attention to the lack of actual public engagement going on in the communities that are being the most vocal about their "home rule."

Originally Posted by laniroj

I'm done with the local zoning - it's never going to sort itself out and these cities/town are wreaking havoc on housing affordability for generations of americans. It's not cool.

Yep - although, I feel compelled to point out that "Trumps GSA" is never going to be on our side on this matter. If anything, he has made it very clear that he supports the "suburban lifestyle," and would likely side with City Councils that wish to accept the regional investment in their community, then put up a wall around said community and say "we don't want any of 'those people' to be our neighbors."

[mhays]

A metro-wide transit agency will rarely support adequate in-city transit (repeating myself iirc). You need an additional Denver-specific funding source to augment RTD service. A separate city/county agency would also do the trick but with big up-front costs.

Focusing development near train stations is crucial. But also you have to serve the other neighborhoods. That means frequent nearby buses for most people.

And you really need state-level mandates that cities accommodate growth.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I have always shared this same enthusiasm for the potential for TOD to make the system that Denver has built more and more useful over time - so much so that I moved to Olde Town Arvada because I believed in this possible future for our metro area.

Unfortunately, what I have since come to discover, is that suburban communities, their council members, and the planners that work for them simply do not share this sense of optimism about TOD.

Outside of DougCo, Arvada may have the next most cranky conservatives. But beyond the Olde Town Station there's only two more stations and both have had some apartment development. More importantly you have to be impressed with what the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority accomplished at Olde Town, no?

Originally Posted by mr1138

CPR recently ran a story about this. Last month, I watched with dismay as the clear majority of Arvada City Council signaled at their study session that they do not intend to implement any land use reforms near transit, and they also do not feel the need to actually engage with the community about this.

Quoting from that CPR article:

Local governments in Colorado and across the U.S. have historically had domain over the rules that shape their growth. State legislators took a swipe at that last year, passing a suite of bills aimed at increasing the state’s housing supply and boosting transit...

It's fair to say that the Colorado Legislature had the liberal political muscle to pass those bills, but people in most cities weren't happy. People and cities don't like the Nanny State dictating what they should believe and want; it's condescending and arrogant.

With respect to your Trump link that was a similar reaction to the Obama Administration trying to dictate housing/zoning requirements at the Federal Level. Again it's arrogant and getting a negative reaction shouldn't surprise anybody. Of course Trump suffers from his own extreme arrogance but that's a different topic.

Case in Point

When the W Line was being built, Lakewood created a nice TOD plan for the Wadsworth Station (as one example). bunt and I had quite the debate as I thought that station would be attractive for TOD. bunt thought I was crazy. Fifteen years gone by and bunt was right and I was was wrong. The only TOD is one 'affordable housing' project.

Moral of the Story

Even if you have the needed zoning etc it doesn't mean any developers will be interested. That said, maybe one of these decades my dream will still come true?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

A metro-wide transit agency will rarely support adequate in-city transit (repeating myself iirc). You need an additional Denver-specific funding source to augment RTD service. A separate city/county agency would also do the trick but with big up-front costs.

Focusing development near train stations is crucial. But also you have to serve the other neighborhoods. That means frequent nearby buses for most people.

And you really need state-level mandates that cities accommodate growth.

Going back to the 1950's thru the say 1970's, Metro Denver grew outward but without much density. Because the city center area of Denver remained the cultural and sports hub, none of the surrounding cities ever built 'downtowns' worth discussing. But more and more people commuted to downtown Denver from the suburbs. For example Phoenix light rail benefits from going from downtown to Tempe so two dense destinations; that opportunity doesn't exist in Denver

If you go back to the late 1990's and early 2000's the suburb to city concept for transit seem to make a good sense. The 1st suburb to city light rail line was a smashing success with standing room only early and 20-year ridership projections achieved within months. That led to metro mayors whether Republican or Dem to want in on that light rail action. That resulted in an easily approved vote for FasTracks.

Additionally, Denver has never really had any good transit corridors outside of East Colfax and even Denver didn't care or push for light rail along that corridor. Outside of FasTracks, Denver never cared to invest any of its own money for more local service. But given that FasTracks was mostly suburb to city, Denver benefitted from that and Denver also benefitted the most from the bus system (even if they fail to understand/appreciate that).