DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Transit is a given but in other instances there's now other options most notably rideshare. Maybe parents can pick you up the closest train station... but if not then just call your friendly Uber/Lyft driver.

Or grab a Waymo and avoid overpaying those pesky drivers.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Do what we want; we'll figure out the rest later

To be or not to be: does Denver want to be business-friendly or unfriendly?

Business friendly? Or do they mean specifically “data center” friendly? Can you imagine the position we’d be in if there wasn’t an ancillary push for wind/sun powered energy along with improved efficiency?

[TakeFive]

I understand "data centers" have become controversial in Colorado which is bit odd

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Business friendly? Or do they mean specifically “data center” friendly? Can you imagine the position we’d be in if there wasn’t an ancillary push for wind/sun powered energy along with improved efficiency?

Historically, Colorado/Denver has been a lightweight when it comes to data center capacity.

U.S. Data Center -- Power Consumption Map (interactive)

Updated as of Feb. 2026 (by state) Colorado is one tier up from the bottom. States that have been more welcoming include Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington State out west. Being the center of the Tech World obviously California has wanted to support the industry. Interestingly, Illinois is a Big data center state.

Back east Virginia is huge and as Cirrus has pointed out data centers generate a lot of tax revenue without burdening the "infrastructure" like road and bridges.

Worth Noting:

Both California and New York are softening their positions on 'climate change' goals. There's two issues: 1) it's become waaay more expensive than originally estimated and 2) meeting the growing demand for electricity will be challenging.

It's not particularly efficient if you can't move electricity from it source to where the biggest demand is when needed.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I understand "data centers" have become controversial in Colorado which is bit odd

Historically, Colorado/Denver has been a lightweight when it comes to data center capacity.

U.S. Data Center -- Power Consumption Map (interactive)

Updated as of Feb. 2026 (by state) Colorado is one tier up from the bottom. States that have been more welcoming include Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington State out west. Being the center of the Tech World obviously California has wanted to support the industry. Interestingly, Illinois is a Big data center state.

Back east Virginia is huge and as Cirrus has pointed out data centers generate a lot of tax revenue without burdening the "infrastructure" like road and bridges.

Worth Noting:

Both California and New York are softening their positions on 'climate change' goals. There's two issues: 1) it's become waaay more expensive than originally estimated and 2) meeting the growing demand for electricity will be challenging.

It's not particularly efficient if you can't move electricity from it source to where the biggest demand is when needed.

Ehhh.... California isn't projected to capture a ton of the new, hyperscale, data center buildout. What they have there are a ton of enterprise and co-located facilities that are roughly analogous to population concentration and major corporate hubs.

In contrast hyperscale facilities have broader geographic requirements and needs, particularly AI facilities, which allow them to be placed a) where power is cheap, b) where it's available, and c) where they can be interconnected the quickest.


CO only hits cheap-ish at the moment.

[TakeFive]

By the end of 2026, apparently

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Or grab a Waymo and avoid overpaying those pesky drivers.

Waymo still steering toward 2026 Denver rollout
Mar 06, 2026 By: Ryan Fish -- Denver7 News

DENVER — Autonomous taxi company Waymo is still on track to start giving rides in Denver "later this year," despite a warm and dry winter, the company told Denver7 this week.

Waymo — a subsidiary of Google parent company Alphabet — announced in September that it plans to expand to Denver. It has been testing its self-driving SUVs and vans on city streets in recent months, with humans still sitting in the driver's seat.

Generally, their prices are competitive with Uber/Lyft. Consider that they have to acquire their own vehicle fleet, equip them with the tech and then maintain them.

I assume they'll start out on a limited area basis; probably won't include the airport initially until they expand the area served.

[TakeFive]

Agreed

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Ehhh.... California isn't projected to capture a ton of the new, hyperscale, data center buildout. What they have there are a ton of enterprise and co-located facilities that are roughly analogous to population concentration and major corporate hubs.

In contrast hyperscale facilities have broader geographic requirements and needs, particularly AI facilities, which allow them to be placed a) where power is cheap, b) where it's available, and c) where they can be interconnected the quickest.


CO only hits cheap-ish at the moment.

I hesitated to talk about the hyperscale data centers but that sounds about right afaik.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I understand "data centers" have become controversial in Colorado which is bit odd

Historically, Colorado/Denver has been a lightweight when it comes to data center capacity.

U.S. Data Center -- Power Consumption Map (interactive)

Updated as of Feb. 2026 (by state) Colorado is one tier up from the bottom. States that have been more welcoming include Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington State out west. Being the center of the Tech World obviously California has wanted to support the industry. Interestingly, Illinois is a Big data center state.

Back east Virginia is huge and as Cirrus has pointed out data centers generate a lot of tax revenue without burdening the "infrastructure" like road and bridges.

Worth Noting:

Both California and New York are softening their positions on 'climate change' goals. There's two issues: 1) it's become waaay more expensive than originally estimated and 2) meeting the growing demand for electricity will be challenging.

It's not particularly efficient if you can't move electricity from it source to where the biggest demand is when needed.

Our land is not cheap in relation to other states, lack of water supplies hurts as well. But its not that data centers have become controversial in the state as a whole, the recent ire has been focused on data centers in the City/County of Denver.

[TakeFive]

Sounds about right

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Our land is not cheap in relation to other states, lack of water supplies hurts as well. But its not that data centers have become controversial in the state as a whole, the recent ire has been focused on data centers in the City/County of Denver.

I had read where there were competing bills at the state legislature, one which would offer data center incentives while the other wanted more limitations.

Yes, cost of land has always been a limiting factor and I assume a lot of that goes to ability to access water/rights.

With respect to water it sounds like nobody is happy with the 'federal' proposals for Colorado River sharing. It's also likely Arizona takes the biggest hit. For their part Phoenix Water already has under construction a recycling facility to turn sewer water into tap water. TSMC as a part of their $40 billion investment has recently started construction on their own water recycling facility. I'm not sure the Colorado front range is much better off than we are in the desert.

[TakeFive]

Small World Story

Last week I picked up "Dan" at an Embassy Suites; he's an interesting guy. He grew up in Minnesota but the family moved to Wisconsin where he still lives. But he spends winters at a ski resort in B.C.

At some point I mentioned that I "spent most of my adult life in Denver." It turns out that his son went to college at DU, graduated with a degree in Finance. He started out at a local CRE company but soon applied for an opening at Trammell Crow Residential. He got the job, he's now 25 years old and has been with TCR for three years.

Just like the old days when the Oil & Gas guys would socialize in downtown Denver, so to the development crowd gets together. Topics of conversation are how hard it's getting to do business in Denver; they especially struggle with the new 'affordable unit' requirements.

I'm thinking that Carmel moved forward with construction of 3300 Blake partly because they were 'registered' before the new affordable unit requirements went into effect. Good guess the same is the case for 4003 Walnut.

[RiNo Randy]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I'm thinking that Carmel moved forward with construction of 3300 Blake partly because they were 'registered' before the new affordable unit requirements went into effect. Good guess the same is the case for 4003 Walnut.

Likely a part of the decision.

The guy I talked to on site last week made some mention of, "it's probably not the best time to start this project..."

But keep in mind that they paid $27.5M for the site and it has been fully cleared for about two years now.

Could it also be a little bit of FOMO? As I mentioned earlier, there is a ton of projects in various stages of the pipeline in the RiNo area - Formativ at 38th/Blake, 3900 Blake, 4003 and 4000 Walnut, Denargo Market, Wynkoop North, NWSS Complex, Denver Rock Drill, the Pepsi Bottling site, etc. Does the early(ish) bird get the worms?