DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I'm left wondering where our area of focus should be downtown after Union Station is built out in the next five years. Maybe the next big project should be redoing the Pepsi Center area as a new neighborhood with a focus on affordable housing, or a massive student residence complex on Auraria that would bring 5,000 students to the campus.

The Pepsi Center site is owned by Kroenke. Chances are that will have to wait until he's finished his NFL vision in L.A., actually Inglewood.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by bcp

^ "chose" is the key word there...you chose, is it fair to jump on Stoneman (who seems like a pretty level headed forumer) for his choices if they turn out better than yours?

If we had the exact same choice to make, no of course not, but that's not always the case. My larger issue with his statement is that Stoneman's discounting many valid critiques as "sour grapes."

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I thought the article contained a few good points (more affordable housing, better intra-city public transit) but a lot of it was nonsense and overall far too pessimistic.

Regarding the next Union Station/"big plans" for Denver, I agree we need that, and I've been saying that for several years now. Later this year, Denver will begin Denver Moves: Transit to envision a network of enhanced transit that could include BRT, streetcars, buying up service from RTD, etc. I'm not sure if that is the next great "grand plan" but it will certainly help us in many ways. The redo of the National Western complex is a fairly big deal.

Agreed. I think there were some nice points (that you've alluded to), but the overall doom and gloom is a bit much.

To add to your list (which I think is spot on) of "Big Plans", I think the following could be great:

1. Denver Moves: Transit (already mentioned)
2. NWSS (already mentioned)
3. Civic Center Transit District Plan
4. Whatever comes out of the Central Rail Extension Study (will likely compete for Federal funding)
5. DMAP Update??

That being said, I also agree that we are lacking leadership level vision for great ideas/projects. Seems like we are in a bit of a "play it safe" mode.

[RyanD]

Here is what I always gripe about with Denver:

1) Affordability - Renting is starting to take a turn with the new supply of apartments coming online. Girlfriend and I are home hunting for July, and it's not as hopeless as we thought. However, we are still catching up to much larger cities, LA being a great example, pretty quickly. I shouldn't be able to live there for around the same price I can here; at least that's what my brain thinks.

2) For Sale Housing - Personally, I think this is where an urban center starts to really get hurt. Your renting base will reach a critical mass, and the people who want that home-buying experience aren't / can't live downtown with the supply we have. Because of this, I wonder how much Downtown is going to start losing to the Tech Center / Interlocken / etc because of home availability / for-sale affordability. If I want to buy a home, it's Stapleton, Englewood, Aurora, etc for me as well. Sad, but that's a reality here. I'm happy for all of you that bought your home 5-7 years ago, and could easily afford it but please think about us younger folks who couldn't afford your awesome home 5 years ago but could today. Think about the future and your offsprings as well, they're going to want to buy a home at one point too. Sorry, I sound like a 'save the environment' dude here. Y'all [homeowners] are way too complacent because the problem doesn't effect you and your property values are amazing right now.

3) Transit - There are so many cities, larger and smaller, that have intra-city transit plans in play with private sponsers, funding, the works! I'm excited to see what Denver Moves has to offer, I just hope real transit has the higher priority / focus versus bike lanes. We all need to grow up, shake our egos off, and realize that bike lanes are not going to solve our traffic problems. I still think we should build bike lanes alongside transit, but dear lord, we do transit like we build infill in the neighborhoods. Low density, and uninspired. Zone it right for Crestmoor Park! 3-story buildings are too much! So is a good transit outlook in Denver, apparently.

I don't mind present day Denver but, like everyone else, I'm a bit weary on 2025/2030 Denver. I think what gets put in play this decade is going to severely impact the 20's either very good, or horribly bad. I just hope we get some things rolling quickly. I always have seen Denver as a reactive city, but it has such potential to be a proactive city.

[mr1138]

My general sense is that there aren't many areas left near downtown that would require a public planning effort of the scale of what was done in the CPV. As TakeFive points out, Pepsi Center is all Kroenke, and I feel like he'll move whenever he's ready and will do what he wants to do.

Arapahoe Square and River North might possibly be exceptions to this, but even there, the extent of public involvement probably only extends to street improvements and possibly the addition of new public spaces. There is pre-existing diversity of land ownership, the streets are already in place, and the private market is already moving into these areas with little public encouragement or catalytic investment. It seems to me that the Broadway/Alameda redevelopment area might be more worthy of civic support than anything downtown. Or possibly other areas not yet under discussion like the Denver Coliseum parking lots, the industrial areas south of Colfax and west of the RR tracks, or potentially even another large rail-yard IF the RR companies think the time is right to sell and redevelop (there is an enormous one in Globeville SE of the Mouse Trap, and another north of 40th Avenue that stand out to me as close enough to downtown to maybe someday be worth it to master plan like the CPV).

[bcp]

Ryan - don't forget the flip side to ownership...markets fluctuate and believe me, this one will come down to reality. There have been times where renting made more sense than walking away from a mortgage - but you sign on for 30 years, or you sell at a bad time and forfeit your equity and tax deduction.

Did you really just try to pull a "think about the children"? If my children can buy a comparable home for the same price I pay now, then we are in big, big trouble with the economy.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by bcp

Ryan - don't forget the flip side to ownership...markets fluctuate and believe me, this one will come down to reality.

What are your thoughts on this? Are you thinking that our population increases will start to taper off, as we become less affordable? Companies will start looking elsewhere (already have) for more affordable places for their employees and the market will correct? Just curious on other's thoughts.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Here is what I always gripe about with Denver:

What a wonderful comment.

The trend is your friend... until it isn't!

The capital that has poured into downtown is a couple of things:
First, what normally would take decades has happened in a handful of years. Second it (generally) has been private capital from institutional quality investors as opposed to merchant builders out for their profit before they move on. The legacy of all this should be quite good.

I wonder if Stonemans_rowJ's thinking and vision will pan out... but it might.
Historically Denver/metro has been victim of many boom and bust cycles. While I think Denver is more insulated from such wild swings it's hard to say how 'secure' it is from economic disruption.

My inclination is to put Denver on the border between the glamor of anything California coastal etc. and the more affordable Sunbelt states. I wouldn't be surprised if affordability returns to downtown area neighborhoods - to a degree - over time.

[mr1138]

Also on the flip side of affordability, I think that we should remember that the real estate market operates on a metro-wide scale, as much as some might wish not to admit to that reality. Denver represents only around 20% of the population of the metro area, and truly "urban" housing stock is an even smaller fraction of that. What has changed is that this tiny fraction of the metro housing stock has gone from being a niche, affordable market for urban hipsters and other people who appreciated the "grittiness" of the city (as well as other low-income groups who found themselves in these neighborhoods primarily just because they were the most affordable in town), to one appreciated and sought after by the upper economic tiers of society.

This may be an unfortunate turn of events for those of us Millennials who wish that it could be as cheap and easy for us to live in Denver as it was for Gen-X. But if we really wish to see a great city constructed, I can't help but feel this will ONLY happen during periods of booming prosperity like we are seeing now, where builders and developers see a real profit motivation to build dense urban structures. Otherwise we'd still be stuck with a city of vacant lots and decaying historic buildings, although it may still be gritty and affordable.

Meanwhile, many suburban areas populated by "garden-style" apartments and bland, cookie-cutter homes built in the 70s-90s (many of which were among the most relatively expensive in the metro when they were first built) are now among the most relatively affordable in town. Again... unfortunate for those of us who appreciate the city and wish we could live there cheaply, but IMO is ultimately a positive for the sake of urbanism in general. Affordable housing is, with very few exceptions I can think of anywhere in the world, nearly always in the older parts of a city that have not undergone revitalization/gentrification. The reality is that the generations that came before us left us with a crap-ton of suburban housing, and did very little to construct new urban housing until just the past decade or so (in fact, they ripped out much of the urban housing stock we did have). This is simply the hand we Millenials have been dealt, and the world that we have inherited, and it just so happens that the inner-ring suburbs are todays equivalent of what Cap Hill and Lower Highland were to Gen-X. But just because the majority of the metro area will ultimately get displaced to the suburbs because of cost does NOT necessarily mean that people will once again begin to prefer suburban design. In fact, as long as central Denver remains expensive, I think we can take that as evidence that urban environments are actually what most people desire if they can afford it, and that can only be a good thing for things like TODs going forward.

And I don't see any reason Denver shouldn't strike now while the iron is hot, and while developers are willing to invest in real urban housing. The future is always uncertain, and for all we know, today's hot neighborhoods will again be tomorrow's affordable ones. And today's inner-ring suburbs could be tomorrow's "hip" gentrifying neighborhoods - especially if some of the TODs ever actually get built according to their ambitious vision.

Now the rising cost of living overall across the Front Range I AM also concerned about. But this is a much bigger issue (much like population growth itself), and for a place like Downtown it really is all about relative affordability. Downtown shouldn't be treated as if it were in a real estate vacuum independent of the metro area that can be all things to all people. It never has been and never will be. If anything, its status as one of the most exclusive parts of the metro area just means it is beginning to be a little more like the club of world class cities it wants to be a part of.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

What are your thoughts on this? Are you thinking that our population increases will start to taper off, as we become less affordable? Companies will start looking elsewhere (already have) for more affordable places for their employees and the market will correct? Just curious on other's thoughts.

I'm sure that Apple has a wonderful corporate HQ campus and has no intention of leaving Cupertino, CA. but when they decided to expand domestically they were the biggest pimp around; if you weren't interested in prostituting yourself you weren't in their sights. They used Arizona (for example) as leverage to get the best deal out of Texas/Austin. They later threw a bone to Arizona who was still anxious to prostitute themselves.

Denver has traditionally been quite affordable in the big scheme of things. Now, not so much. I may not be tea party friendly but if you're aware of the trends there are reasons why the Sunbelt cities are winning most of the big ones. Of course many companies want to be in the east since that's where the largest population is.

If you are a company looking to expand, the site selection business has become very sophisticated. Cost analysis is a primary consideration in the decision making process.

[TakeFive]

mr1138... You're a very wise millennial. That was an excellent overview of the current state of things.


On a positive note and if I've said it once...
take DaVita for example. What a nice win for the state and City of Denver. Could use another ten of those. Admittedly "he" had sort of a Euro view of life but what made Denver so attractive was its awesome airport.

DaVita does exemplify the growing number of companies with far flung business operations that just uses its HQ as a home base. They may not bring tons of employees but they're also more able to be fussy about where they live. Quality of life rather than bottom line costs come more into play. Ardent Mills is another good example. Home grown CH2M Hill and IHS also have grown internationally while using Denver as their home base. Thank you DIA.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

If you are a company looking to expand, the site selection business has become very sophisticated. Cost analysis is a primary consideration in the decision making process.

Cost matters, but talent availability remains the single most important thing. Denver is missing out on a lot of the technical expansion jobs primarily because there isn't a great engineering school to be found here (Mines is fantastic, but doesn't turn out many graduates). Google is parking themselves in Boulder with the hope of recruiting directly out of CU Boulder.

I'm always sort of baffled that we as a state can't come up with the money to invest in engineering in the city. Both Metro and CU Denver are prime targets for really good engineering schools. Just freaking do it already.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by enjo13

I'm always sort of baffled that we as a state can't come up with the money to invest in engineering in the city. Both Metro and CU Denver are prime targets for really good engineering schools. Just freaking do it already.

MSU Denver seems to be on that track that with it's new AES building with a primary focus on aerospace. But, really investing in engineering schools at either university would require the state to, oh, actually fund higher education. Which is not something that we seem to be to keen on doing.

Hell, maybe the City of Denver would consider funding an engineering program at either university for local students.

[RyanD]

Is that a crane foundation you're pouring or are you just....


http://oxblue.com/open/skyhouseapartments

[TakeFive]

^ That's not for a Sky Train I presume?

Originally Posted by enjo13

Cost matters, but talent availability remains the single most important thing. Denver is missing out on a lot of the technical expansion jobs primarily because there isn't a great engineering school to be found here (Mines is fantastic, but doesn't turn out many graduates). Google is parking themselves in Boulder with the hope of recruiting directly out of CU Boulder.

I'm always sort of baffled that we as a state can't come up with the money to invest in engineering in the city. Both Metro and CU Denver are prime targets for really good engineering schools. Just freaking do it already.

I couldn't agree more.

I've ranted previously about this especially in comparison to ASU which by itself has doubled their engineering school and now wants to grow another 50% more. Although Phoenix/Chandler does have a solid semiconductor base I'm not sure they'll ever achieve their tech dreams. But they're giving it the ole college try (literally).

I assume you won't agree with me when I suggest I have difficulty seeing Denver/Boulder as any more of a tech destination than Phoenix. They just have different strengths and niches. Not sure that's such a bad thing either. I do know that the number of B1 visas from India have been growing exponentially down here, lol.

In a way though we live in a techie world; tech is everywhere. It's in Wichita Kansas. I'm sure you'd agree that Texas while being anal about some tings has supported their university system well. Colorado can and should do better.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

mr1138... You're a very wise millennial. That was an excellent overview of the current state of things.


On a positive note and if I've said it once...
take DaVita for example. What a nice win for the state and City of Denver. Could use another ten of those. Admittedly "he" had sort of a Euro view of life but what made Denver so attractive was its awesome airport.

DaVita does exemplify the growing number of companies with far flung business operations that just uses its HQ as a home base. They may not bring tons of employees but they're also more able to be fussy about where they live. Quality of life rather than bottom line costs come more into play. Ardent Mills is another good example. Home grown CH2M Hill and IHS also have grown internationally while using Denver as their home base. Thank you DIA.

I think you could also add Arrow Electronics (our highest ranking Fortune 500), ULA (they could have gone anywhere), and Lockheed Martin (although not technically HQ'ed here, there Space Systems division is based here - with 463 jobs currently available according to their website). Lockheed is also consolidating operations here from many other parts of the country.

DaVita is only one of many, and if you look at the OEDIT website, there are still quite a few companies looking to relocate here with well over 5,000 jobs, based on my quick math.

[DownhomeDenver]

Hey since we're kicking our cowtown while it's down, there is this little number about how we did DUS wrong:

http://purple.city/2014/12/29/how-denver-got-it-wrong/

One of the great planning cockups of the 2010s is the Denver Union Station redevelopment. Originally constructed in 1894-1914 as a through station, Denver Union had adjacent light rail platforms added in 2002. In the last few years, the station has been redeveloped into a stub terminal, requiring a reverse move for all of the four new PRR/NEC spec commuter rail lines that will open in 2016-18. The light rail station was also moved further away.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I think that Bunt is talking more about "big plans" in regards to downtown. While the Stock Show redo, coupled with the I-70 redo, is certainly a major project it's not exactly going to transform NE Denver into the next urban enclave. Globeville is still going to suck and these projects will probably end up benefiting Stapleton, Green Valley Ranch, and the cancer that is Aurora more than downtown. Denver Moves: Transit hopefully results in a robust transit network for Denver itself that will benefit downtown through increased connections and frequency, though it's not a sole-focus project on downtown. But what's the next big push for downtown?

I'm left wondering where our area of focus should be downtown after Union Station is built out in the next five years. Maybe the next big project should be redoing the Pepsi Center area as a new neighborhood with a focus on affordable housing, or a massive student residence complex on Auraria that would bring 5,000 students to the campus.

We do have a 20-year plan for Downtown that we're currently in Year 8 of: the 2007 Downtown Area Plan. After two decades of mega-projects, the 2007 DAP was mostly based on the notion that what was needed at this stage in Downtown's development wasn't more mega-projects, but a thousand small- and medium-sized steps to capitalize on the big investments in the past two decades. These small steps focus on things like improving pedestrian and bicycle connections, getting better retail, adding a lot of housing, better wayfinding, greening Downtown, improving public spaces, etc. I largely agree with this approach. We should always be on the lookout for big ideas and grand projects that may present themselves or that become apparent in time, but before rushing off to spend another billion dollars on building a subway or something, I think it's reasonable to focus for a while on all the little things that make for a great city.

Oh, perhaps the biggest idea in the 2007 DAP is Arapahoe Square and transforming it into Downtown's next great neighborhood. Still a ton of work on that to go before we tackle places like the Pepsi Center parking lots.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by rds70

I think you could also add Arrow Electronics (our highest ranking Fortune 500), ULA (they could have gone anywhere), and Lockheed Martin (although not technically HQ'ed here, there Space Systems division is based here - with 463 jobs currently available according to their website). Lockheed is also consolidating operations here from many other parts of the country.

DaVita is only one of many, and if you look at the OEDIT website, there are still quite a few companies looking to relocate here with well over 5,000 jobs, based on my quick math.

Yup... I've wondered if Hickenlooper's familiarity with Tom Clark and Metro Denver EDC isn't what wanted him to elevate a similar strategy at the state level?

I'm also reminded of a recent post by Eric Jay Toll in the PBJ, April 1st about PetSmart which was recently taken private.

PetSmart Inc.'s top management changeover this week leaves the Phoenix-based company with leaders who have few ties to the Valley and a leased corporate headquarters.

Those characteristics, according to economic development specialists, make the company a prime target for headquarter raiders...

Having been in the business Eric goes on to make this very good observation:

Economic developers will tell you that more time and effort is spent on business retention than on recruitment. It’s one of the reasons cities are such big backers of incubators and accelerators. It’s significantly easier to grow and retain a home-based company than it is to lure one from out of the area. The latter make big news and splashes, the others pay the bills.

I Think Hickenlooper has been good at pursuing both; I know he worked with Lockheed to make sure they were satisfied to expand their footprint in Colorado. He was closely involved with Arrow's decision also and he pulled a rabiit out of the hat with Argent Mills.

Colorado will lose a lot more than they win; it's the nature of the beast; we just don't hear about most of the misses. What matters is just to get its share of wins from time to time.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

We do have a 20-year plan for Downtown that we're currently in Year 8 of: the 2007 Downtown Area Plan. After two decades of mega-projects, the 2007 DAP was mostly based on the notion that what was needed at this stage in Downtown's development wasn't more mega-projects, but a thousand small- and medium-sized steps to capitalize on the big investments in the past two decades. These small steps focus on things like improving pedestrian and bicycle connections, getting better retail, adding a lot of housing, better wayfinding, greening Downtown, improving public spaces, etc. I largely agree with this approach. We should always be on the lookout for big ideas and grand projects that may present themselves or that become apparent in time, but before rushing off to spend another billion dollars on building a subway or something, I think it's reasonable to focus for a while on all the little things that make for a great city.

Exactly

Shoot Denver has so many different plans it gives me a headache just thinking about all of them. How many other cities have made the effort of so many plans. Speaking of spending a billion dollars the $850 million makeover of the National Western site is getting pretty close. That seems like quite a lot to have on one's plate if you ask me.

Seriously, while it's mostly in the rear view mirror at this point the Better Denver Bond effort was precisely the execution of all the planning, neighborhood by neighborhood and block by block. Whether park improvements or new streetscaping on 14th Street, South Broadway or on Tennyson Street these costly improvements really add to the quality of life hopefully for decades to come.

Still there's likely as many additional projects that weren't included as were done so there still plenty of things to do - according to plans.