DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[RyanD]

Found 1144's doppelganger. Eighth Ave Place in Calgary:


EAP again by LUMIN8, on Flickr


nick.flood

[DenverPoke]

Yup, both done by Hines and Pickard Chilton. Now if Denver can only have about half of the other recent and current projects going on in Calgary...

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

Yup, both done by Hines and Pickard Chilton. Now if Denver can only have about half of the other recent and current projects going on in Calgary...

The Calgary building looks like it is ~47 stories tall, with a crown. The balance (width vs height in the renderings) looks much better than the tentative Denver proposal. Of course the Calgary rendering looks much more like a final design than Denver's tentative proposal (joke).

You are correct about wishing Denver's urban core could build out as 1/4 as fast as Calgary's. To make the comparison even a worse comparison, Calgary's metro is around 1.25 million which would also be Calgary's consolidated metropolitan statistic area using US comparisons.

The real jaggernaut in NA is Toronto right now. If Denver had 1/10 the core construction that Toronto has had for the last 10 years, Denver would have a better skyline than Dallas.

[DenverPoke]

Agree about Toronto, but I view it more a peer of Chicago than Denver. Calgary has left Denver in the dust, pretty amazing what they have going on up there density-wise. Seattle and Calgary are the 2 somewhat realistic model cities I hope Denver aspires to become.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Mulligan

Crews were doing more soil samples this morning in the parking lot at 18th and Broadway.

Soon as SkyHouse Denver was announced I figured it would move quickly to construction. They've built so many of these it's like rolling out of bed in the morning.
The site is perfect for this apartment and I still will guess that they will have a more diverse tenant mix than many of the new apartments on the other side of downtown
or what Novare Group typically has expected.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

Agree about Toronto, but I view it more a peer of Chicago than Denver. Calgary has left Denver in the dust, pretty amazing what they have going on up there density-wise. Seattle and Calgary are the 2 somewhat realistic model cities I hope Denver aspires to become.

I wasn't even aware of the activity in Calgary though I'm not surprised.

Thinking back about 8 years or so, Denver's (both city and metro area) economy has been more tepid in comparison to so many other cities. Denver didn't experience the same construction push before the recession and didn't snap back as vigorously as many cities as well.

But Denver did benefit from specific downtown catalysts.

The 1st was the expansion of the convention center and convention hotel. The convention growth for Denver has been very successful. It's why I seriously think they should consider the need for future expansion and preserve the ability for doing so.

The 2nd was obviously Fastracks. Thank goodness for the ARRA which enabled Union Station to proceed without delay.

Thank you "fracking." While not as robust as the Bakken or Eagle-Ford and now Permian basins the activity in the Denver-Julesburg basin is nothing to sneeze at. At this point, I would guess this is now more about rooftops in Weld County than office space in downtown. But it has been a noticeable contributor.

Lastly has been the great love affair by Millennials for urban living.

So while not as vigorous as many cities, Denver has been solid and picking up momentum. Nothing to complain about.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

Agree about Toronto, but I view it more a peer of Chicago than Denver. Calgary has left Denver in the dust, pretty amazing what they have going on up there density-wise. Seattle and Calgary are the 2 somewhat realistic model cities I hope Denver aspires to become.

I don't really get this comment about Calgary, in what way have they left Denver "in the dust"? Have you been there in person? If anything, it is pretty much our fraternal twin, both have significant construction going on, and while some of the newer stuff is taller in Calgary and in general they do have a taller downtown, I wouldn't say that downtown is any more dense in Calgary vs. Denver. Calgary also doesn't have a bike share program implemented to my knowledge, though one could argue they might have a little better intracity rail and BRT system (haven't used it much, just going off what I have read and word of mouth).

Just a quick comparison of the downtowns taken from pretty much the exact same altitude in Google Earth.

Denver


Calgary

[DenverPoke]

I've only lived here since 2008, but the transformation since that time has been pretty amazing. I can only imagine what downtown was like 10 years ago and I can't wait to see what the next 10 years bring. Denver IS doing well.

[Pavlov]

Probably a more useful comparison:


SOURCE: http://www.wyattphoto.com/images/large/Aerials%20ONT-DEN_095_700-72.jpg

SOURCE: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Denver_aerial_1.jpg


http://www.stockaerialphotos.com/-/galleries/cities/calgary

http://www.stockaerialphotos.com/-/galleries/cities/calgary

http://www.stockaerialphotos.com/-/galleries/cities/calgary

http://www.stockaerialphotos.com/-/galleries/cities/calgary

[PLANSIT]

Oh lord. Here we go.

Originally Posted by Reesonov

Probably a more useful comparison:

It's really not.

[afrench]

And that's with a metro population of 1.2 million. Thanks, mid-century American sprawl!

[BG918]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

Agree about Toronto, but I view it more a peer of Chicago than Denver. Calgary has left Denver in the dust, pretty amazing what they have going on up there density-wise. Seattle and Calgary are the 2 somewhat realistic model cities I hope Denver aspires to become.

Calgary is the Houston/Denver/OKC/Tulsa/Midland of Canada all in one. They are the center of the booming Canadian energy industry and have reaped the benefits of that position, especially in the past decade as the oil sands have become increasingly relevant in the global oil landscape. A good chunk of Denver's growth is also related to this industry yet there are people in Colorado wanting to limit their drilling activities.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Oh lord. Here we go.

Sorry, couldn't let it go though...I like Calgary, and have been there recently. Yes they have a pretty impressive looking downtown these days, but honestly it didn't feel anymore dense or lively than Downtown Denver when you are actually in it. Again, just comes down to density versus size arguments.

BTW, technically Calgary has more buildings than a lot of other American downtowns, Seattle and Miami included.

We could also throw up pictures of Dallas and Houston too, but I wouldn't trade Denver's downtown for their any day in terms of liveliness.

Also come on, you use two aerial views of Calgary that are post processed and very vibrant colors, and you throw two of Denver looking dingy

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

I don't really get this comment about Calgary, in what way have they left Denver "in the dust"? Have you been there in person? If anything, it is pretty much our fraternal twin, both have significant construction going on, and while some of the newer stuff is taller in Calgary and in general they do have a taller downtown, I wouldn't say that downtown is any more dense in Calgary vs. Denver. Calgary also doesn't have a bike share program implemented to my knowledge, though one could argue they might have a little better intracity rail and BRT system (haven't used it much, just going off what I have read and word of mouth).

In terms of comparing the metro areas and city centers, Calgary has left Denver in the dust as a far larger percentage of Calgary's office growth has been kept in the city center whereas Denver's has been diluted over the CBD, I-25 corridor, US-36 corridor, etc. Denver's CBD is okay for a metro area of 3M or so, but Calgary's is exceptional for a metro area of 1.2M.

Just imagine if 75% of the commercial growth in the I-25 corridor from 1990-2010 had been downtown instead. That's what Calgary is like.

[rds70]

One very important concept is missing from this Denver vs. Calgary discussion: land use regulation.

The city of Calgary controls almost all of the urban development taking place in the region. There are no suburbs or unincorporated counties vying for growth.

Calgary made the decision to create a vibrant and centralized downtown and zoned accordingly. Very little suburban office was allowed until recently. That's why downtown Calgary has 40,000,000 sf of office, while the rest of the area has 11,000,000.

Compare that to Denver where the suburbs compete for development and Denver is landlocked. Downtown has 26,000,000 sf of office while the suburban areas have 60,000,000.

I think having downtown as the central hub of rail transit will change Downtown Denver in a very positive development sense, but because of our land use regulations and lack of control of the suburbs, Denver will never be like Calgary.

[DenverPoke]

Nice photos of Calgary, but dude those are some pretty dated choices for Denver. I could see Denver having that kind of density in 10-15 years if the construction defect laws are amended. Arapahoe Square would really have to pop though.

[Sam Hill]

I’ve wondered a lot lately (and if I ventured around this message board I’m sure I’d find countless conversations about this topic) what exactly happened to cause all of the Canadian cities to suddenly start building skyscrapers like crazy in recent years, while cities in the U.S. just stuck with the status quo – despite the fact that the two countries are experiencing the same trend of urban living and revitalization of the urban cores, etc. Seriously, what's going on in Canada?

I just did a search for an article that might explain this phenomenon, and so far the best thing I’ve found is this:

http://www.asce.org/CEmagazine/Article.aspx?id=23622322821

The closest thing to an explanation it gives is that building skyscrapers in the urban cores of U.S. cities is expensive while in Canada it’s “a different situation.” Really? I don’t see any reason why land costs, labor, or materials would have a dramatically different cost in Canada.

Anyway, I’m moving to Canada. :p

But seriously, Canada’s skyscraper boom seems to be part of a worldwide trend, so I have this hope that the U.S. is just a few years behind (perhaps due to a slower recovery from The Great Recession or something?) but will soon be joining the trend, in which case downtown Denver would be poised to boom harder than any of its peers of similar size.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by rds70

One very important concept is missing from this Denver vs. Calgary discussion: land use regulation.

The city of Calgary controls almost all of the urban development taking place in the region. There are no suburbs or unincorporated counties vying for growth.

Calgary made the decision to create a vibrant and centralized downtown and zoned accordingly. Very little suburban office was allowed until recently. That's why downtown Calgary has 40,000,000 sf of office, while the rest of the area has 11,000,000.

Compare that to Denver where the suburbs compete for development and Denver is landlocked. Downtown has 26,000,000 sf of office while the suburban areas have 60,000,000.

I think having downtown as the central hub of rail transit will change Downtown Denver in a very positive development sense, but because of our land use regulations and lack of control of the suburbs, Denver will never be like Calgary.

Yes office space is significantly greater in Downtown Calgary, and it is unfortunate that we have the DTC/Inverness/Meridian and Interlocken to siphon away office development...however the downtown populations are very similar, and possibly even higher in Denver (I can't really tell the areas involved, but DDP says 17,000 in Denver core, while THIS says 8,000 or 12,000 depending on which number would be more comparable to the area for the Denver number.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by rds70

One very important concept is missing from this Denver vs. Calgary discussion: land use regulation.

The city of Calgary controls almost all of the urban development taking place in the region. There are no suburbs or unincorporated counties vying for growth.

Calgary made the decision to create a vibrant and centralized downtown and zoned accordingly. Very little suburban office was allowed until recently. That's why downtown Calgary has 40,000,000 sf of office, while the rest of the area has 11,000,000.

Compare that to Denver where the suburbs compete for development and Denver is landlocked. Downtown has 26,000,000 sf of office while the suburban areas have 60,000,000.

I think having downtown as the central hub of rail transit will change Downtown Denver in a very positive development sense, but because of our land use regulations and lack of control of the suburbs, Denver will never be like Calgary.

Well that definitely answers some of my questions. (a lot got posted while I was "dictating" my last comment. I'm using speech recognition software, and this crap takes forever.)

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by rds70

One very important concept is missing from this Denver vs. Calgary discussion: land use regulation.

I think having downtown as the central hub of rail transit will change Downtown Denver in a very positive development sense, but because of our land use regulations and lack of control of the suburbs, Denver will never be like Calgary.

rds70... excellent comments and comparison.