DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by corey

I don't think developers getting away with bribing people to not seek historic designation on clearly historic properties is appropriate either. If the developer has the money for the bribes then they have the money to move the house. At least they could offer to sell the house for $1 to someone that will move it. I know what you are now going to say. But sorry, I am broke. Just got divorced.

Where's the bribe? Did he offer more than the market would pay for?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This fascist crap makes me want to puke.



Time and place? I'll be working late tonight (and every night, if I'm ever going to be able to afford a home in Denver...which some holier-than-thou forumer will then expect me to give away someday for a dollar if it has a vintage rain gutter on it, so f* it)... could use a drink right now. I'll buy this one. You buy me one later after the historic preservation gestapo ruins me.

Boooo. Where's my drink? I had the bestest meeting evar today!

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Boooo. Where's my drink? I had the bestest meeting evar today!

In-city-suburbanizers buy their own drinks. At the friendly neighborhood punchbowl. Really though, feel free to come down, I'll get a round or ten.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Yes, you did. The owner of these two properties entered into an agreement with a developer to sell the parcels for $1M with the explicit agreement that the owner would not seek historical designation for the "pretty" house. Then Councilmen-elect Shit-bag and a few other shit-bags uses his authority to pursue a historic designation application against the homeowners wishes and violating the city's rules on such designations.

If that's not usurping one's property rights, than what is?

Yikes. If you had read or if you re-read my comments you'd know that I was wondering whether the homes owner had any interest in selling to the developer or not. I hadn't yet read the DP article to know what had already happened.

CPLIVE... Thanks for the link to the DP article and the photo.

Scottk... Yes, the comments were hilarious.

I guess I have difficulty understanding how saving an 1880s-era Queen Anne-style house if in good condition means nothing? This isn't just some pizza dinner that bunt is willing to pay for that we're throwing away. I'm happy to let the process play out.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by corey

If he can't get $1,000,000 for those two properties as they are then he needs a better realtor. The Queen Anne is worth at least $600,000 alone. Probably more.

That's a pretty easy search, the queen ann is worth $425k and the next door property is worth $300k according to city of Denver....or if you like Zillow, the queen ann is $525k and the property next door is $280k....or how about Trulia, $520k & $302k.

So $1,000,000 is a very very fair offer, and appears to be nearly $200k more than what he would have gotten if he sold both separate...he would have to be mad not to take that offer. And again, you know nothing about the condition of that queen ann other than some far away photos, so making judgement that it "should be saved" is just conjecture because you happen to like the architecture.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

To be totally honest I have a high regard for property rights which is why I haven't suggested usurping those in any way. That said, we didn't even know what the relevant homes were until CPLIVE was nice enough to show us.

Interesting that the zoning is for only 3 stories. In any case I am only offering my opinion and preference for what would best serve the neighborhood well over time.

It's kind of hard to have these two sentences live together....are you sure you respect property rights? Someone is selling the two homes that they own. Buy them if you want to save them.

What would best serve the neighborhood has been deigned already by the zoning, various design boards, historic districts, building code, fire code, and more.

What layer would you suggest adding to this?

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

In-city-suburbanizers buy their own drinks. At the friendly neighborhood punchbowl. Really though, feel free to come down, I'll get a round or ten.

Im near pints pub and off at 8. Let's do this.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Im near pints pub and off at 8. Let's do this.

Not sure I can be done quite by 8, but I'll hurry. End of fiscal year tonight!

[corey]

Touched a nerve.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Maybe I missed it but I didn't find where... the landOWNER in this case wanted to sell his properties to the developer?

Really? If the landowner did not want to sell his property rights to the developer then this would not even be an issue in the first place unless you know if a way for a developer to build on land that he does not own?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bcp

It's kind of hard to have these two sentences live together....are you sure you respect property rights? Someone is selling the two homes that they own. Buy them if you want to save them.

I appreciate that; obviously I'm conflicted. But it's a difference between the heart and the head. I wouldn't stand in the way of a property owner's rights but that doesn't mean I can't think it's an unfortunate situation. I refuse to believe that also having a regard for Denver's history and historical buildings is a bad thing.

Originally Posted by RyanD

The sad thing about this seemingly never-ending-hellish housing market Denver is SO proud of, is that I'm going to want to start a family one day and do so affordably. After many nights / days / weeks of talking, I think we (fiancee and I) are going to try our best to live somewhere more affordable with a better city amenity (it's shockingly possible now). It's very unfortunate but this just isn't it for me anymore. At least for now... Could be September, could be next year, but I have a pretty strong feeling it'll be soon.

I sure can't blame you. Timing is everything. I'm probably living in the best opportunity in the country. Very affordable and inevitable robust upside. But it's a big country so there's a lot of good choices. I'll be curious to learn what you decide but wish you the best and Godspeed.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It just seems logical that Denver will face a shrinking pool of companies willing to seriously consider the Denver metro area. If you're a growing company that wants to expand and be west of the Mississippi why not anywhere in Texas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Reno or Boise where the cost of doing business is much lower?

Companies will continue to locate in Denver over those cities because a lot of talented people want to live in Denver. For every company that moves something else is moving in or growing, or two somethings.

Being expensive doesn't hurt the expensive cities' economic development. At least not with major cities. It's a side effect of being desired, often made worse by underzoning (lack of room to grow) and other policy aspects.

The cheap-n-easy model tends to result in cities that draw lower-wage "commodity" jobs (back offices for example), vs. the expensive cities that tend to draw jobs that are more tied to the best talent. Obviously that's a fuzzy line and most companies value both types, but the mix varies. Sometimes the former do better attracting families, and the latter do better attracting singles who are more interested in urban amenities. Worse for the cheap cities, companies they attract via concessions are by definition transitory and not deeply rooted, and often move away.

Some people choose cities because of how their dollar will stretch. Others choose cities they like the best, and/or to the cities where their talents are most valued. The top performers are usually lucky enough to be able to do the latter. And companies want the top performers.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Companies will continue to locate in Denver over those cities because a lot of talented people want to live in Denver. For every company that moves something else is moving in or growing, or two somethings.

Certainly in some cases with some companies I'd agree. I was thinking more that the bloom would come off the rose, not that the rose would die.

It does get a bit complicated though. Like in the example I gave with Zenifits. They need good IT people; yet their success now moves to more one of recruiting and customer care since the basic software is there.

Denver does still have some good forward momentum. But how things pan out over the next 5/10 years is unknown.

BTW, congrats to Washington for cutting their college tuition by 15-20 percent going forward.

[Brainpathology]

The universal assumption that Denver seems to be starting to make is that new = bad, old = good, and there isn't even the slightest belief that a row of townhomes are going to look good in this location.

The ONLY motivation for stealing, STEALING AT LEAST 200k from the landowner is the assumption that the townhomes won't look good or won't look as good as a 100 year old home. A home which we know nothing about the condition of and nothing about what actual historical value it has (which I suspect is none). What we DO know is that the owner of this home which wasn't historic before the offer was made chose to sell the home.

It should be obvious to any commission anywhere that when homes start becoming historic at the EXACT moment they go under contract to a developer the application should be denied punitively. If a home has no historic value at all except to snobby thieves who get their jollys from stealing money from homeowners it has NO HISTORIC VALUE.

Why don't you and your councilman walk 100 yards to either side. Pick a house which looks exactly like this one (which suddenly became historic when it went under contract to a specific person who you personally don't like) which ISN'T under contract and save it by getting historic designation. See if you're successful. Your real motivations are so very clear and transparent when one of the preconditions for landmark designation is that it's under contract.

It's gross, and makes me ashamed of being from there.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by mr1138

How do we know he will be just fine? How do we know he didn't just recently pull his equity out of the property to pay for some serious medical bills? Or his kids' college? Or other personal debt? I completely agree that he can probably find a buyer looking for a historic home to live in, but he almost certainly won't make the same return as if he sells to the scrape-and-flip developer. And we don't know what kind of personal financial decisions he has been making with the assumption of a specific return on investment.

From the article above:

Sonnleitner, a roofing contractor, said Adams Development, owned by Nathan Adams, approached him about selling the two houses. He's lived in the house at issue since 1990, and he says he has no retirement savings.

So Sonnleitner says he accepted an offer for $1 million — conditional on obtaining the certificate of non-historic status to ensure redevelopment.

"If my house is declared historic, the deal's off," Sonnleitner said. "Because there isn't any way that they could develop just part of (the properties)."

So basically, the house this guy owns is preeety and I don't have enough money to offer him the same amount so I can keep lookin at this preeeety house for awhile longer. (and obviously the new townhomes won't be preeeety or old). So lets steal 20% of his retirement!! Because you know F*ck him! We're all liberal n junk in Denver.. unless someone wants to change slightly the pattern of photons coming into our retinas on one corner... then it's ON!

[bcp]

These posts are awesome.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Just when you think the insanity that is Denver's housing market can't go on... it does. Then one day it stops, quietly. The party ends.

I just haven't seen much of THIS in Denver of late.
Jun 30, 2015 by Hayley Ringle, Phoenix Business Journal

There was also this announcement today:


It just seems logical that Denver will face a shrinking pool of companies willing to seriously consider the Denver metro area. If you're a growing company that wants to expand and be west of the Mississippi why not anywhere in Texas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Reno or Boise where the cost of doing business is much lower?

I strongly disagree with your conclusion. Denver is still cheap compared other major cities and has a tremendous quality of life. Further, Reno, Las Vegas, Boise are notalternatives to Denver. You are comparing a thriving tier two city (at least IMO) to two lackluster tier three cities and Boise Idaho. Good luck recruiting a lot of talent in Idaho. Boise is a beautiful place but the talent pool is nowhere close to Denver. As for Phoenix, it is not doing so hot itself. The very article you just cited to highlight mentioned a company moving its phoenix HQ to Tempe (and the other is an exciting AZ company opening a new office- not relocating). And lastly, the cost of doing business in Texas is not as low as many people make it out to be. They just offer major incentives that make it hard turn down. Granted, this is all just my personal opinion and I expect people to disagree with me here but come on- while Denver is a little more expensive than these other cities, none of them come close to matching up with Denver's amenities.

[TakeFive]

Ben Miller at Denver Business Journal has some good news on the job/leasing front.

DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. said it's leasing two more floors in the Gates Building in downtown Denver.

The Denver health-care company (NYSE: DVA) now will lease six of the ten floors of the building at 1551 Wewatta St.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Ben Miller at Denver Business Journal has some good news on the job/leasing front.

Sounds like they may want to move out of their HQ and find something bigger to consolidate their workforce. Having 6 floors of people that they couldn't have fit in their brand new HQ seems odd. They didn't expect that kind of growth?

[TakeFive]

Another Groundbreaking

Our urban friend Justin has a nice story at Denver Urban Review on the mixed use project in RiNo at 35th and Larimer Street.

Cool Render

Courtesy of Drahota via Denver Urban Review

Side Note: Justin is counting on those drones for delivery of his favorite burritos.