DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by RyanD

That's because DI needs to remain neutral. It's infill news. We all like unbiased news in this world and there isn't enough of it!

Being constantly positive is not unbiased. It is not only negativity that constitutes a bias. If DenverInfill can't even call out blank walls that it finds to be "bad for the city" for fear of offending the development community, then that is the definition of bias.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Just read a .pdf that HUNI put out from a survey they sent out to about 6000 households, with a 7% return rate.

The comments highlighted on the .pdf pretty much were all negative about parking, development, character, gentrification, etc.

Can Lohi secede from West Highland? seriously, those attitudes are so lame.

Ironically, they want more small business like flower shops and grocery. So, more business, but no more people, and you need to keep parking available for them right out front even though they live within walking distance.

*rant over*

There is always some cognitive disconnect between what people expect and want they are willing to pay or put up with.

People want services, schools, and infrastructure, but don't want to pay taxes.

People want all kinds of retail available, but would rather buy it on Amazon to save a few bucks.

People want great options for alternative transportation, but are unwilling to get out of their own cars.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Embassy suites and the Hilton Garden Inn both have ugly blank walls as well on the side towards where another building is built, this one just happens to be taller and stands out more...and the problem is if a building does get placed next door, it is unlikely it will be as tall as the Hyatt House/Place, so that blank wall will probably never be completely covered up. Hopefully they put a huge mural or advert on that wall.

Embassy Suites no, this is nowhere near as bad. And Hyatt Garden Inn I think gets a pass because the building next door was already there at the time it was approved and built. And yes, that can and should make a difference.





Compared to:

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Embassy Suites no

At least Embassy did something with their blank wall. Also, it's in much more 'prime' land territory and before we know it, this is going to cover it up. Nevermind. No it isn't... It's only taking up half that surface lot.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Being constantly positive is not unbiased. It is not only negativity that constitutes a bias. If DenverInfill can't even call out blank walls that it finds to be "bad for the city" for fear of offending the development community, then that is the definition of bias.

There's nothing biased about that post. Yes, it's making great progress. The building is rising, nobody is dying, the crane hasn't collapsed after jumping it, panels haven't fallen on pedestrians, etc etc; great progress from a development standpoint.

Everything else? All in due time my friend. When the project is complete, then it can merit a really why do we have this big *expletive x 1,000,000* blank wall sitting here with no treatment. But, the project isn't done yet so I'm being hopelessly optimistic.

Might I direct you to a couple of examples? Block 32, Element 47. I will call projects out, I just wait until they're around 95% complete so I know for a fact that it's a miss.

Also, check the comments on DI for the Hyatt. It's already taking care of itself. I'm letting the people speak without fanning the flames, man!

[TakeFive]

RyanD... Yes, DI readily expresses certain urban standards. Generally Ken refrains from judging the architectural quality of buildings and that's fine. However the quality and character of the lower levels is deemed important ie. how a building engages the sidewalk. At least that's my recollection. In fact are there not more specific architectural standards for the first 2/3 levels?

Where's seventwenty? I'm feeling like the "obtuse bro" today.

(H/T to EngiNerd) With respect to Hyatt, I have to assume the presumption was that a building could be constructed next to that "blank" wall. What is likely or not to happen isn't relevant to what *could* happen. Besides 99% of the people who engage themselves with downtown spend virtually no time walking around "looking up."

Stonemans rowJ... I can appreciate the emotions from those who expressed a disappointing opinion. I assume there are still residents that have lived in that area for over 30 years. Others have moved in desirous of that same neighborhood ambiance. Resisting change is a human norm. Obviously there's been a lot of deadwood east of Federal but there's some really nice blocks too. I would also say they need to accept the updated zoning. It does seem as though the blend of more density to less is happening in a reasonable manner as it should however.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Embassy Suites no, this is nowhere near as bad. And Hyatt Garden Inn I think gets a pass because the building next door was already there at the time it was approved and built. And yes, that can and should make a difference.

Compared to:

Maybe Diamond Cabaret can put a gigantic poster advert on there!

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by RyanD

There's nothing biased about that post. Yes, it's making great progress. The building is rising, nobody is dying, the crane hasn't collapsed after jumping it, panels haven't fallen on pedestrians, etc etc; great progress from a development standpoint.

Haha, "any development" is not your standard for "good development," I know it's not. Lots of 80s full block parking garages with towers behind that rose, did not kill anybody, did not collapse, etc. etc. I have never heard you or Ken sing their praises.

Of course, I don't actually care about the blank wall, I was just defending the criticism of it. "Good architecture" above the first couple building stories doesn't really matter to me. Nor do I expect anything more than mediocrity here. I am okay with quantity over quality, so long as the pedestrian treatment is right. Getting there would make us like pretty much every other city in the world; chalk full of garbage buildings, but still relatively interesting to walk around.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

There is always some cognitive disconnect between what people expect and want they are willing to pay or put up with.

People want services, schools, and infrastructure, but don't want to pay taxes.

People want all kinds of retail available, but would rather buy it on Amazon to save a few bucks.

People want great options for alternative transportation, but are unwilling to get out of their own cars.

I agree completely.

It seems like the same No Highrise crowd who may be in the vast minority but are very vocal about what they deem to be great injustices being done to them and "their neighborhood."

Typically you're only going to hear back from people (in this case 7%) who are pissed off since there were few if any positive comments. IF you live in the neighborhood and don't have an issue with parking or development, why would you take the time to fill out a survey? You wouldn't. I'm a homeowner in Lohi and I certainly didn't get a mailer.

Little anecdote: I go with my pregnant wife yesterday to Highland Square to look at cribs at Real Baby, a local baby boutique. We parked on 32nd and Newton as we wanted to grab a bite at Fire on the Mountain. I suggested biking but my wife didn't want to. The street was crowded (like 90% parked) but we found a spot about halfway down the block. It is obvious most of these people were eating at Fire. When we finished and came back out to our car, the homeowner whose home we had parked in front of, was unloading hay bails out of his huge pickup truck into his front yard. He watched us walk up and starting spouting off about the cars on the street, parking, and the "idiots at Fire on the Mountain, etc."

We didn't engage him; I almost felt bad for him. Here is this guy who has a two car garage in back and thinks its his god-given right to have his 25-50 foot frontage available to him at all times, like he owns the street. Absolutely ridiculous. This is not the first time we have encountered this sentiment in Highland Square and its a real turnoff.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Where's seventwenty? I'm feeling like the "obtuse bro" today.

Sup homie? Have some topical art:




The Denver Post covers condo construction from some developer's POV:

Ever so slowly, developers are moving forward on a new wave of condo construction in the metro area — but they are treading like soldiers crossing a minefield. The developers say they are going in with the assumption they will be sued under the state's current construction-defects law and are incurring heavy costs to avoid that fate.

[Western Development, a] company [involved in 250 Columbine,] is photographing or filming every step of construction. Carefully vetted contractors are adding in their costs to test materials and systems. Peer reviews ensure the best practices are in place.

. . .

Such measures are expensive, but [those involved at 250 Columbine] said that is what is needed to get a condo built in Colorado's litigious environment.

Brian Levitt and Trevor Hines of NAVA Real Estate Development are planning 198 condos and 26 townhomes on a former parking lot at the former St. Anthony's Hospital site off of West Colfax Avenue.

The pair have spent the past year crafting a detailed three-page, 18-point action plan to deal with any contingency they could think of arising from the state's constructions-defects law.

Levitt estimates all the safeguards being put in place will add 5 percent to 10 percent to the costs of the units at NAVA Sloan Lake, whose final price points are being determined.

A big chunk comes in the higher insurance premiums developers say they must pay to build condos in Colorado. Hines estimates those premiums will run about 2.5 to 3 percent of their project cost versus the 0.5 percent that apartment developers are levied.


. . .

Given higher insurance premiums and added safeguards, many of the developers interviewed said they don't see how a condo could get built in the $200,000 range, which is more affordable to a first-time buyer.

Phoenix developer Myles Bruckal is giving it a run with Cottage Grove, a project near the Fitzsimons Medical Campus in Aurora. The development will include 47 new multifamily units, as well as conversions of existing apartments.

Cottage Grove will test the middle of the market, with prices from $200,000 to $250,000. Bruckal said he can price in that range because he is picking up land and existing design plans at a big discount from a "broken" condo project launched last decade.


. . .

Garrett said the units have sold as planned. But defenders of the current law argue that demand, especially on the lower end of the market, just hasn't been there.

"You can't build it until there is demand," Pacey said.

. . .

Levitt, citing research from Metrostudy, said the metro area saw 3,587 condos closing in the 12 months through the first quarter of 2006.

There were only 414 condo closings between the first quarters of 2013 and 2014.

Many other projects remain in limbo. Bill Swalling, president of Actual Communities Inc. in Littleton, said he hasn't been able to find any builders willing to touch condos at Water's Edge, a mixed-housing development in Fort Collins.


He has shifted his focus to Mountain Villages, a higher-end project south of Morrison designed to provide 320 condos for seniors.

"When you get into that higher price range, the project can withstand the incremental insurance costs," Swalling said.

And from the DBJ a few weeks ago: NO DEMAND FOR CONDOS (dat bias doe?)

A lack of demand for condominiums is causing the dearth of condo development in Denver, rather than backlash from the construction defects law, as many developers and brokers have said.

That's according to a new report commissioned by a local coalition of homeowners called Build Our Homes Right. Boulder-based Pacey Economics Inc. completed the study, titled "Housing Market Analysis: Supply and Demand."

Economic conditions following the recession have contributed to a market in which buying a home is more difficult and expensive than it used to be, the study says.

Higher fees, required credit scores and home prices, as well as wage stagnation, unemployment and lower marriage rates have all kept potential buyers out of the market, said Pat Pacey, principal at Pacey Economics, during a conference call Tuesday.

Higher student-debt loads have also contributed to the younger generation holding off on buying a home, she said.

Ughhhhh..... Maybe if they were cheaper we'd see moar of DAT DEMAND.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

And from the DBJ a few weeks ago: NO DEMAND FOR CONDOS (dat bias doe?)

Of course that "study" would come from Boulder. I am sure a liberal hack who "was not able to acquire data on insurance premiums required for condo developments" has more credibility than Metrostudy.

[TakeFive]

Great cartoon.

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Sup homie? Have some topical art:

[Western Development, a] company [involved in 250 Columbine,] is photographing or filming every step of construction. Carefully vetted contractors are adding in their costs to test materials and systems. Peer reviews ensure the best practices are in place.

Some of this seems like sound business practices. Some of it sounds excessive.

The problem with condos is that shoddy construction can result ultimately in a ghetto complex. With townhomes the risk hasn't been as much. I'm familiar with some of the crap that was built in the 1980's especially in parts of Aurora but not exclusive to Aurora. Construction has always been very difficult to "police." Inspections and inspectors have been more joke than useful.

I'd like to think that maybe just maybe Denver can get it right. It obviously swung way too far towards protection. That needs to be fixed.

[bcp]

thanks for the summary...that's really interesting...0.5 vs 2.5 to 3% of costs? that's pretty bad...

sad, but nice, to see that the private market is finding away around the inability of the legislature to do anything on this issue - yet affordability is the step child.

[bunt_q]

Yeah, I am sorry, but we do not need to build condos like we build spacecraft. Sometimes shit will break. I don't see why giving a builder an opportunity to repair is such a problem. And that's the real rub - it shows homeowners groups aren't really worried about quality construction - if that was the goal, you could get there through a mechanism that gives building professionals the opportunity to repair defects. What they want is litigation and insurance money, gained on the shoulders of their neighbors, who they're suing on behalf of. Notice we do not have these problems with single family homes. It's because individuals are smart with their decisions to sue, and generally prefer to just get a problem fixed. But when you get to sue with other peoples' money, it's a very different animal. Apparently lawyers are the only ones smart enough to figure out how lawyers make their money. If I didn't care so much about affordability, because that's just who I am... not gonna lie, though, this is good for my clients. (It's good for sprawl too.)

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

And from the DBJ a few weeks ago: NO DEMAND FOR CONDOS (dat bias doe?)

No agenda there (hehe).

I've previously made the point AND the distinction that what may have been true 2-4 years ago isn't necessarily true now or going forward. The misleading innuendo is that everyone is equally impacted negatively. Reality is that will vary along a spectrum of people. While there is merit to the points made every year that goes by more and more potential buyers are less impacted by those points.

True Story Rant:
We all know how Republicans like to rag on all things government and favor the private sector (that's fine). So when GWB was in office they passed legislation that enabled private colleges to enjoy the same access and benefits to government guaranteed loans as pubic institutions. In principle nothing so wrong with that plus they have friends in the private sector who like to make generous campaign contributions. And the unintended consequences?

During that time period there was much nifty, whiz-bang software created that made processing and approval for loans speedy, easy and efficient. I'll assume that everybody is familiar with many of the abuses that occurred leading up to the RE bust.

There are reasons why the Father(RIP) and Son owners of Phoenix University quickly became billionaires. The name of the game is sell, sell, sell. I used to hang at a blog where former UOP counselors ie. commissioned sales people divulged the shenanigans that went on. Just as with real estate they literally went out on the street looking for bodies with a heartbeat. Just find someone with a real SS number and ID, know how to fill out the forms and presto: government guaranteed loans. And what one guy/college does everybody else will copy.

There are many, many $billions in loans that had no business being made or have any chance of ever being paid back that litter the government ledgers.

Ahh, you really could get rich quick back then.
Those were the days my friend
We thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
For we were young and sure to have our way.
La la la la...
Those were the days, oh yes those were the days
(Mary Hopkins)

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Sup homie? Have some topical art:

Suppose congress acts to create a more developer friendly environment for condos construction, would we see another Spire go up? What do you guys think would be the result?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yeah, I am sorry, but we do not need to build condos like we build spacecraft. Sometimes shit will break. I don't see why giving a builder an opportunity to repair is such a problem. And that's the real rub - it shows homeowners groups aren't really worried about quality construction - if that was the goal, you could get there through a mechanism that gives building professionals the opportunity to repair defects. What they want is litigation and insurance money, gained on the shoulders of their neighbors, who they're suing on behalf of. Notice we do not have these problems with single family homes. It's because individuals are smart with their decisions to sue, and generally prefer to just get a problem fixed. But when you get to sue with other peoples' money, it's a very different animal. Apparently lawyers are the only ones smart enough to figure out how lawyers make their money. If I didn't care so much about affordability, because that's just who I am... not gonna lie, though, this is good for my clients. (It's good for sprawl too.)

If your response is to my comment I have no beef with most of what you state. Never suggested that condos are akin to to a spacecraft or that things should never break.

I've never suggested that the existing protections DID NOT need a fix. I'm not one to favor a Nanny State. You can't protect everybody against everything.

That said, I'll assume that nobody wants to live next to the next slum housing. Condos need to NOT have that reputation. They need to be built so that isn't likely.
As far as what the specific solution is, that admittedly is above my pay grade but hopefully a reasonable fix will be found.

[bunt_q]

Well maybe not Congress lol. But if the state legislature did something then yes, I think we would. The climate is even perhaps more favorable now than in 2006.

[Brock Landers]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

And from the DBJ a few weeks ago: NO DEMAND FOR CONDOS (dat bias doe?)

From that same article:

The average selling price for a Denver-market condo increased by 20 percent in October, to $235,740 from $204,808 a year earlier. Average sales price for detached housing increased by 9.6 percent in the same time period.

How fascinating. Here I was thinking that rapid price appreciation was a sign of strong demand.

OPEC should hire these guys for a study: RECORD HIGH DEMAND PUSHES OIL BELOW $25 PER BARREL!

[DenverInfill]

Dual Hyatt + Zero Lot Line Zoning Requirements = Blank Wall

It's really that simple. If the lot is big enough, the developer has the choice of voluntarily stepping back their upper floors away from the lot line so that if their neighbor builds a tower too and hopefully does the same thing (assuming there's not a tower as a neighbor already), then both towers can have window looking at each other with enough of a gap (40 feet or so) between the two buildings. In doing so, they sacrifice a fair amount of building square footage.

But if the parcel size isn't big enough or doing the step-back would undermine the project's pro forma regarding gross building square footage, then the developer is going to design a building with a blank wall on that side lot line because they don't want to take the risk of putting rooms with windows on that side of the building only to have the neighbor (currently, in this case, a small historic building--which is not a designated landmark, so it could get torn down) build a tower without a step-back and puts 18 stories of blank wall 1 inch from their windows.

It's a bit of a dilemma. The alternative is to change the zoning to require a step-back above the building podium.

[mojiferous]

In other news, there is fencing up around the Skyhouse site — looks like we'll have another hole in the ground soon.