DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[RyanD]

Ken and I went somewhere cool today! DI post coming soon!


1601 Wewatta Hard-Hat Tour by RyanDravitz, on Flickr

[denconyny]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Ken and I went somewhere cool today! DI post coming soon!

Really cool pic!

The Triangle Building looks really good as well. Too bad it couldn't be higher, but already the shadow that it casts is a lot.

And now to fill in the empty lot below with the 12 and 5 story buildings that are supposed to be built there, and all set.......

I suppose hardhats were required to get this cool pic?

[DenvertoLA]

daaaaamn! dat corner be legit AF, ya feel?

[enjo13]

It's weird.. for the first time in the history of Denver that corner actually feels too damn glassy to me. It's overwhelming. I think the Kimpton hotel will balance everything out nicely.

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by BG918

The streetscape all through River North has not kept with development. Even Market Street by the ballpark between 21st and Broadway still has non-existent or elevated sidewalks. It gets worse as you go north. Obviously Brighton Blvd has been slated for a major improvement but Blake, Market and Larimer should also be part of that discussion as the area transitions from industrial to more more mixed use and residential.

I've been saying the same for the past few years. I love that Brighton is going to get attention but Blake, Market and Larimer DEFINITELY need an investment from the city in streetscaping!

Originally Posted by denconyny

I think that it maybe is this:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=104086

or not?

No, that's at 19th and Grant. Is it just staging for the renovation of the old church or monastery or nunnery or whatever that building was at 19th and Grant?

[CharlesCO]

The last time I was there, only half of the glass was installed on the Triangle building, but I love that stretch of Wewatta. I think it's a pretty cool canyon of glass.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by denconyny

Really cool pic!

The Triangle Building looks really good as well. Too bad it couldn't be higher, but already the shadow that it casts is a lot.

And now to fill in the empty lot below with the 12 and 5 story buildings that are supposed to be built there, and all set.......

I suppose hardhats were required to get this cool pic?

please don't hand the 'shadow' argument to nimby's...this pic is just a time of day thing, and noticeable due to denver's abundant sun. and what is the big deal about shadows? trees give shade, but buildings are evil so it's shadows...

i've never understood this, especially in denver, where it's incredibly sunny, streets are wide, building's are short, and angle of DT streets allow great sun penetration. there are so many anti-urban issues that nimby glom onto, let's not load their guns!

what's next....5 stories is a high rise? oh wait...

[BG918]

We need the Kimpton hotel and adjacent office building built to really tie that corner all together. Anyone know its current status? It was originally supposed to start last summer! I hope they still go with the brick it will help balance out all the glass.


http://denverinfill.com/blog

I was down there yesterday. It looks like they are close to being fully enclosed at the Triangle building. Across the street a Starbucks has opened (it was only a matter of time..) and I bet more retail starts to go in along 16th. 1601 Wewatta will have a branch of the Colorado Athletic Club. They are actively drilling shoring piers for 1701 Wewatta. And I saw people going into The Platform to take tours so they must be getting close to being finished.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

So… If we follow Arizona's example will our economy be as strong as theirs? And our downtown as vibrant and developed as Phoenix?

With respect to Gaylord I don't need to pontificate any more. I think some have missed that it's more the issues involved than Gaylord specifically.

With respect to Phoenix if you're familiar with my comments you'd know that I have mostly criticized Arizona/Phoenix/metro area.

I can still recall driving down 17th Street in the early 1980's to marvel at all of the cranes. I happen to be fortunate to have some business dealings with the gentleman that was in charge of the two-block development called One Denver Place. Fortunate because he is easily one of the more fascinating people I've met. His story started with his crawling away from a concentration camp when he was still young. The only way I got his deal done was to go against (my) company policy and introduce my favored buyer to him in person. In his 60's at the time, he needed to look into the buyers eyes and shake his hand. One up close and personal meeting and the deal was done except for the attorneys doing their job.

By the late 1980's many of those sparkling new buildings were now see-through buildings due to extensive vacancy. Housing values in some Denver suburbs dropped as much as 70% from their peak.

Phoenix metro was one of the poster children for the housing boom and bust. They are experiencing very much what Denver experienced starting in the mid 1980's.

If you're unfamiliar with Phoenix, the metro area has followed more the "Village Plan" with nodes of density and commerce. The biggest problem that the city of Phoenix has, especially its center, is the lack of regional cooperation. There was a time in Denver's history when it suffered from much of the same. Even after the oil and gas building boom of the early 1980's it was mostly a 9-5 kind of place.

If you were unaware metro Phoenix sprawls. Part of that is from their many "mountain" ranges within the area. If you wish for more vibrant areas you'll find them next door in Scottsdale, Tempe and Chandler is a tech comer. This MSA has 1.7 million more people than Denver. Try picturing Denver with that many people?

Based on their impressive success over the last 2/3 decades (prior to the Great Recession) Arizona arrogantly took themselves for granted. Who knew that outside of the gateway cities that appealing to millennials would be such a key in recovering from the recession and prospering? Due to the awful Arizona politics millenials have been more likely to move away from this area than move to it especially if the focus is on college graduates. I'm over generalizing a bit of course.

I have gotten pushback from some on local blogs that they wouldn't care for Denver's traffic mess and freezing weather. Every area has its proponents and detractors. I assume that Phoenix metro will gets its economic engine revved up and do fine just as Denver ultimately did.

I'm not sure whether Denver has enough cache to be arrogant and take themselves for granted though.

[TakeFive]

I had a delightful visit in Birmingham today. If you're a fan of urban energy you have to be impressed with the last few years and currently. If you're fan of reclaiming historic 1920's monoliths you'd have to be gratified. It's just now catching on and was challenging to pencil out the cost with buildings that have been vacant for many years but thanks partly to a state tax credit it is happening.


With respect to incentives I came across this: The Mile High model.
Their story starts HERE.

"Is Birmingham's incentives turf war crippling our chance at prosperity?"
Jan 24, 2014 by Ryan Poe & Ty West, ACBJ

Similar incentive battles have been a mainstay in Birmingham for years. For places like Irondale, it forces them to compete against cities with much larger warchests. For the metro’s largest municipalities, it often means paying up to protect their turf and their tax revenue.

But for metro Birmingham as a whole, critics say it’s a zero sum game – diverting money that should be spent to lure new companies and cannibalizing the region’s chances for growth.

“What happens most of the time is, those businesses already have in mind where they want to move, then get the municipalities to bid against each other to get a better incentives package,” said Stewart, who is now the city clerk. “Right now, we’re basically just moving money around."

What's Denver got to do with Birmingham?

Incentive wars between local governments are hardly just a Birmingham problem.

Metros around the nation have faced similar issues for years. In metro Kansas City, which straddles Missouri and Kansas, millions in incentives are being given to companies to entice them to move often just a few minutes across state lines.

But a potential blueprint to solve the challenge could be found in Denver.

The Mile High model

The Colorado metro’s Mile High Compact is a voluntary agreement between Denver municipalities that, among other things, forbids competition for local companies who stay in the region.

Prior to that compact, Denver was facing similar challenges to Birmingham.

“All of the cities and counties would compete so vigorously, we would chase them out of town,” said Tom Clark, CEO of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corp., the organization that spearheaded the compact.

Unless you were around when downtown Denver wasn't such a nice place, it's probably hard to appreciate how critical regional cooperation has been to Denver's current success.

[TakeFive]

trubador... I'm sure it was confusing as things ran together a bit but Northern Trust is a well regarded bank with many international locations. Their so-called "regional operations center" is not a data center.

ski82... I don't have any problem with the spirit of your comments and The Dirt said much the same on a different thread. bunt_q makes the more compelling arguments however.

I like to look at the reality of things. This Congress would NEVER pass such legislation even if was a good idea. Republicans who now control Congress have their majority of support from south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Over the last decade or more the Sunbelt has been eating the lunch of those states north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Incentives, a lower tax base AND being Right-to-Work states are all factors. I see where Wisconsin just voted to become a Right-to-Work state.

Now if you live on the West Coast, not to worry. Same with the eastern seaboard for the most part. After the 2008 elections, if you wer4e lucky enough to live/work in D.C. you were in the hot place to be.

Denver has benefited from a perfect storm of regional cooperation, thinking especially of Fastracks and appealing to millenials on top of the momentum that had already been in motion.

Going forward Colorado/Denver may lose more times than they win but as long as they're "In the Game" and get a share they should be fine. No rest for the weary though.

[DownhomeDenver]

i honestly can give two shits less about Phoenix,Scottsdale, Tempe, comparisons to Denver and all this constant drivel about it.

Btw denconyny the lot at 19th and Logan is just staging for Alexan Uptown. Or was it mojiferous that asked about it?

Hugs. I love everyone!

[TakeFive]

Fun, fascinating and well written article in the Denver Post by John Aguilar regarding likely new suburban sprawl.
Definitely worth a read. SEE HERE.

The article mentions DRCOG's projection for adding 1.2 million people by 2040. I wonder if that isn't a bit conservative and that this population isn't reached closer to 2030 than 2040?

Attention is paid to millennials and using Joel Kotkin from Chapman University as a source, who suggests that they're not so different from previous generations and that a lot will move out to the suburbs for the same reasons as in the past: space and affordability.

The article is very good for how it touches on different trends and issues and offers varying opinions. The early comments were as you'd expect and always entertaining.

[bunt_q]

Joel Kotkin is a hack. In this instance, I think he is probably right, although more for affordability and a lack of any other options than a "desire for space," which is hardly what you get with newer suburban development these days anyways. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, as they say. I think the observation that builders don't really know how to build what people want is absolutely true, I see that every day. There's a definite lack of creativity in the development industry. And local governments are basically unimaginative and too afraid to challenge the status quo in any forceful way. I can assure you, based on entitled development alone, the "suburban sprawl" we've come to know and love will still be being built 30 years from now. Nothing is changing in that regard. That's why I focus so heavily on the percentage of overall growth Denver is capturing - a tiny percentage - growing tinier every time somebody bitched about a five story building). Until that goes higher, all of the transit and a few thousand units downtown are meaningless. Transit is never going to serve the exurbs effectively unless we build them differently, which we are not doing. Basically, we folks who have a weak orgasm every time an inconsequential new project goes up on Denver Infill - we are part of the problem for not being willing to fight the difficult fights, and caring instead about building ourselves a tidy little island of urbanism to play on, while for most of the rest of metro and nearly all of its people, nothing changes.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Joel Kotkin is a hack. In this instance, I think he is probably right, although more for affordability and a lack of any other options than a "desire for space," which is hardly what you get with newer suburban development these days anyways. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, as they say. I think the observation that builders don't really know how to build what people want is absolutely true, I see that every day. There's a definite lack of creativity in the development industry. And local governments are basically unimaginative and too afraid to challenge the status quo in any forceful way. I can assure you, based on entitled development alone, the "suburban sprawl" we've come to know and love will still be being built 30 years from now. Nothing is changing in that regard. That's why I focus so heavily on the percentage of overall growth Denver is capturing - a tiny percentage - growing tinier every time somebody bitched about a five story building). Until that goes higher, all of the transit and a few thousand units downtown are meaningless. Transit is never going to serve the exurbs effectively unless we build them differently, which we are not doing. Basically, we folks who have a weak orgasm every time an inconsequential new project goes up on Denver Infill - we are part of the problem for not being willing to fight the difficult fights, and caring instead about building ourselves a tidy little island of urbanism to play on, while for most of the rest of metro and nearly all of its people, nothing changes.

Actually, builders are building exactly what people want- downtown rental units. In the new sharing/renting economy fewer people will buy, more will rent, and that guy is a hack if he thinks millennials are no different than every other generation.

I just read two books that I found very interesting. The Great Inversion, actually read that a while ago, but essentially the pull to city centers is not a trend or a fad. It's the new paradigm for cities like Denver.

Also, The Great Reset, by Richard Florida. He mentions Denver several times as one of the cities poised to grow rapidly. Book is a few years old but it is playing out exactly as he calls it. Great read.

[bunt_q]

Those guys are mostly hacks too. Rather than argue about social trends in the abstract, with everybody trying to prove their on point (including Team-Great Inversion - which really only refers to an inversion of white people with money - you know, the people who matter), let's look at actual numbers.

Here are building permits pulled in 2014, from the Census Bureau, by county. The calculations are my addition:



My quick analysis, this is a huge reversal over the post-war period. But Denver is still only capturing 1/3 of metropolitan growth. (And if you take out the single-family component, which is hardly urban, that number drops to around 1/4.) That is progress, but it is hardly a paradigm shift, and very much threatened by anti-growth trends in the core, which the fringes are not really subject to.

And to stoneman's response, no, they are not. Unless 50% of demand is still for traditional-layout suburban single family product. Perhaps that's true. But I think even that segment is not being built exactly how buyers really want. And certainly a portion of the 8,000 rental units permitted would've been for-sale product if circumstances allowed for that. But that's a separate discussion. In any case, it is not true to generalize that "downtown rental units" are what people want when that is less than 20% of the units being built.

I am a little surprised to see that Denver is only capturing about half of the multifamily units being built. Would've expected higher.

[TakeFive]

Looked at another way, using Wikipedia's Census data indicates that Denver's MSA has grown by 150,000 from 2010 to July 1st, 2013 which would be an average of not quite 43,000 people per year.

Even with downtown Denver aggressive growth how much is the downtown population growing? Only thing I found is Denver Infill indicates that the whole City and County of Denver grew by virtually 15,000 in 2012 and another 15,000 in 2013.

In effect the City/County of Denver has captured about 35% of the MSA population growth which is essentially what bunt_q suggested. That is quite impressive actually even if not surprising. But chances are that percentage will revert going forward as more development pops up outside the city. Presumably the "worker bees" population will grow the most and not many of them will live downtown.

[DownhomeDenver]

There are some updated renderings of the Country Club Towers on RDS' site:



Denver Cityscape

[Zmapper]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Of concern is the lack of development of two and three-family homes. Developers large enough to push their way through the morass of zoning are sticking to either single-family sprawl or large apartment complexes. Two and three-family units, of the size that a middle-income household could obtain financing, are basically nonexistent. Average middle-income households interested in constructing a two/three-unit building as a source of extra income for their retirement or children's college tuition or whatever are stymied by the zoning code, which they are either unable to build under as-of-right and/or are too small to "effectively negotiate" with boards and councils.

Colorado needs some of Los Angeles's dingbats: https://letsgola.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/round-palms-i-3-dingbats/

[DenverInfill]

According to the Census, twenty years ago, in 1995, Denver County's total housing building permits equaled 4.5% of the metro total, using the same counties as above. It was 3.9% if you include Boulder County. If Denver's percentage is up in the 30% range now, that's almost an order of magnitude change in 20 years. How big does a change need to be before it can be considered as a paradigm shift? (serious question)