DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

The comments under the article are hilarious. I guess only conservatives read the WSJ.

Eh, not really. Many do listen to Talk Radio etc. and like to strut their ability to repeat the talking points but generally business-interested people tend to hang closer to the center. Check out basic news blogs whether the DP or Yahoo; much more of them there.

That was a nice article; nice job by Hines.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

The comments under the article are hilarious. I guess only conservatives read the WSJ.

I read an article a few months ago about how many publications are now removing their internet comment sections. There was a fair amount of both research and anecdotal evidence that such sections were dominated by "trolls", whose only purpose was to post incendiary comments that quickly lose track of the matter covered by the article in question and grossly distort the public discourse of the issue. In other words, they not only did not add value to the discussion they undermined it entirely.

From what I've seen of most comment sections, that is spot on.




P.S. Someone even wrote a book about it !

http://billions-and-billions.com/2014/02/13/my-book-officially-forthcoming-with-mit-press/

[mhays]

Yes, and it's not just the cranky old timers. There's a thriving industry in populating comment boards (SSP included we can assume) with paid commenters who attempt to influence public debate on any number of topics.

The NYT had a huge story a couple weeks ago about a Putin-aligned online sweatshop that does this on a bunch of topics but especially anything Putin related. We know other countries do this on a massive scale also. Political campaigns do it. Industries do it...oil and other climate deniers of course, much like the cigarette industry campaigns of (mostly) yesteryear...

PS, congratulations on the big project start. That's an impressive matrix.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Bunt, the articles on the I-70 viaduct redo are amusing. When are you going to be interviews on it Bunt and explain why four toll lanes are necessary?

Ha, the only interviews I do are at happy hours. And because of Amendment 41, I even have to buy my own drinks.

[DenvertoLA]

check out 1144 fifteenth's new website...pretty epic

http://1144fifteenth.com/

[DenverInfill]

Here's our local mainstream media at work:

http://kdvr.com/2015/06/10/ground-broken-on-40-story-skyscraper-in-downtown-denver/

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/06/09/ne...f-shops-27-floors-of-office-space-a-gym/

I know that sometimes good people make honest mistakes. But really. How could anyone possibly think that someone would build a tower with 13 floors of shops and restaurants?

We have a hard enough time making second-floor retail work in Downtown, let alone 13 floors' worth! I don't think you'd see 13 floors of retail even in Manhattan.

How could these reporters possibly think that information is correct? Did CBS repeat what Fox said without verification? Where did they get that information from in the first place? Certainly nothing from Hines says anything about 13 floors of retail, and the Denver Post, the Denver Business Journal, DenverInfill, and BusinessDen all reported it correctly.

Unbelievable.

[Cirrus]

It's very unfortunate that Denver's urbanist blogosphere is so balkanized. It's too bad DenverInfill, DenverUrbanism, and Denver Streetsblog aren't a single one-stop shop.

Anyway, all of them take guest posts. If you think they're missing a voice, write more for them. That's how the internet works: Whoever talks the most wins. You can complain, or you can do something to fix it. It's totally up to you.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Here's our local mainstream media at work:

http://kdvr.com/2015/06/10/ground-broken-on-40-story-skyscraper-in-downtown-denver/

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/06/09/ne...f-shops-27-floors-of-office-space-a-gym/

I know that sometimes good people make honest mistakes. But really. How could anyone possibly think that someone would build a tower with 13 floors of shops and restaurants?

We have a hard enough time making second-floor retail work in Downtown, let alone 13 floors' worth! I don't think you'd see 13 floors of retail even in Manhattan.

How could these reporters possibly think that information is correct? Did CBS repeat what Fox said without verification? Where did they get that information from in the first place? Certainly nothing from Hines says anything about 13 floors of retail, and the Denver Post, the Denver Business Journal, DenverInfill, and BusinessDen all reported it correctly.

Unbelievable.

So whats exactly on 1-13? Lobby and restaurants on 1 and parking above? From the model it looks like floors 2-13 are parking AND offices. Is that right?

[TakeFive]

DenverInfill... That is so hilarious.

KDVR got it right even if clumsy:

...27 stories of office space built atop 13 stories of retail shops, restaurants, a state-of-the-art fitness center and more than 800 parking spaces.

But CBS Local totally blew it starting with the headline writer. LOL
Where KDVR messed up was referring to skyscrapers rather than office skyscrapers.

[DenverInfill]

How did KDVR possibly get it right? They got it totally wrong. There's no 13 stories of retail!

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

So whats exactly on 1-13? Lobby and restaurants on 1 and parking above? From the model it looks like floors 2-13 are parking AND offices. Is that right?

Our long and detailed DenverInfill blog post on the project laid it out floor by floor.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Our long and detailed DenverInfill blog post on the project laid it out floor by floor.

The blog states parking floors 3-13

But the models and diagram clearly shows a significant parts of those floors with glass windows, while other parts of the floor appear to open as you would expect from parking.

Visually, it appears that parking must only SHARE floors 3-13. If it correct that those floors are 100% parking?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It's very unfortunate that Denver's urbanist blogosphere is so balcanized. It's too bad DenverInfill, DenverUrbanism, and Denver Streetsblog aren't a single one-stop shop.

Anyway, all of them take guest posts. If you think they're missing a voice, write more for them. That's how the internet works: Whoever talks the most wins. You can complain, or you can do something to fix it. It's totally up to you.

I look at it this way. Imagine how lonely the "urbanist blogosphere" must be south of the Mason-Dixon Line although I'd be tempted to give Charlotte a pass.

The DC metro area, NYC and other NE-ern cities, the Bay area, Portland and now Seattle are an urban paradise compared to cities in southern states. But when State Farm sets up regional farms of 2 million sq. ft. in Atlanta, Dallas/Richardson and Phoenix/Tempe it moves the economic needle. They did choose to be near rail transit in each location so there is some urban/transit energy even in the South.

But affordability and sprawl still rule the day down south. Airplanes, autos, defense, insurance, you name it and there's been a huge migration to southern states. Even laggard Arizona now seems to be racking up wins every other week. A NYC software company just chose Scottsdale over Portland, Denver and Austin for one primary reason: affordability.

At least in Colorado things seem to oscillate on either side of the middle line which is a good thing IMO.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

How did KDVR possibly get it right? They got it totally wrong. There's no 13 stories of retail!

Wait... Hmm... There's a specific intended meaning with sentence structure that includes commas and the word "and." It means you combine all of those things together and voila.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

The blog states parking floors 3-13

But the models and diagram clearly shows a significant parts of those floors with glass windows, while other parts of the floor appear to open as you would expect from parking.

Visually, it appears that parking must only SHARE floors 3-13. If it correct that those floors are 100% parking?

100% parking. They are using the same glass to make it not look like parking. Nice, huh?

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Wait... Hmm... There's a specific intended meaning with sentence structure that includes commas and the word "and." It means you combine all of those things together and voila.

Okay, I can accept that they meant that the 13 floors was inclusive of the long list of uses. Considering that the parking, which was mentioned last, is 85% of those 13 floors, it was a horribly constructed sentence. But CBS definitely screwed it up.

[bcp]

Ryan - the next phase for your drone activities?

http://www.aerialsphere.com/spheres/illinois/chicago/26/

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Here's our local mainstream media at work:

http://kdvr.com/2015/06/10/ground-broken-on-40-story-skyscraper-in-downtown-denver/

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/06/09/ne...f-shops-27-floors-of-office-space-a-gym/

I know that sometimes good people make honest mistakes. But really. How could anyone possibly think that someone would build a tower with 13 floors of shops and restaurants?

We have a hard enough time making second-floor retail work in Downtown, let alone 13 floors' worth! I don't think you'd see 13 floors of retail even in Manhattan.

How could these reporters possibly think that information is correct? Did CBS repeat what Fox said without verification? Where did they get that information from in the first place? Certainly nothing from Hines says anything about 13 floors of retail, and the Denver Post, the Denver Business Journal, DenverInfill, and BusinessDen all reported it correctly.

Unbelievable.

Isn't the building more like $300 million? Not the $141 million quoted in the Fox story?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Isn't the building more like $300 million? Not the $141 million quoted in the Fox story?

It gets confusing as sometimes they'll report construction costs while other times they'll report total project costs. Usually soft costs, it seems, are closer to a third of total costs so I have no idea here. When I occasionally read ENR Mountain States I know they're reporting construction costs unless they stipulate both.

Originally Posted by bcp

Ryan - the next phase for your drone activities?

http://www.aerialsphere.com/spheres/illinois/chicago/26/

Haha, that is amazing to view.

While Chicago has bounced back nicely there's trouble brewing. Moody's (although not the other two rating agencies) has downgraded some of the bonds of both the state and city to a low investment grade. If you lose your investment grade then most institutions would have to divest their holdings as they're not allowed to invest in risky assets. That would cause rates to rise rapidly.

I know there's been some concern over PERA (a state obligation) but not nearly to the extent of Ill. and Chicago. Denver has been able to attain the highest bond ratings which saves a lot of money when borrowing.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Isn't the building more like $300 million? Not the $141 million quoted in the Fox story?

If they're building for $212/sf, not including the parking, that would be mighty impressive. Something tells me Fox botched it.