DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[mhays]

Most decisions aren't made based upon consensus goals, and they're often not even for long-term benefit.

A legislator might be more worried about holding the party line, or not pissing off those senior citizens who vote in mid-term elections. A CEO might be incentivized more by annual profitability and the related bonus. I often choose lunch by what tastes good over what's healthy.

Combine actual disagreement with mis-aligned incentives & short-term thinking, and it's easy for the majority to choose a bad idea or inertia.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Most decisions aren't made based upon consensus goals, and they're often not even for long-term benefit.

A legislator might be more worried about holding the party line, or not pissing off those senior citizens who vote in mid-term elections. A CEO might be incentivized more by annual profitability and the related bonus. I often choose lunch by what tastes good over what's healthy.

Combine actual disagreement with mis-aligned incentives & short-term thinking, and it's easy for the majority to choose a bad idea or inertia.

This is a case of a sore that been festering. The Dem opposition isn't even thought to be a majority but rather the issue gets killed by assigning it to a key "friendly" committee. The power, in this case, of the lawyer lobby.

BTW, you might enjoy reading THIS. I didn't want to bore this thread but what it essentially says is that a company comes in with easy-to-fill back office jobs and if they like the area they'll then add higher value jobs as they expand their footprint with additional functions.

[TakeFive]

Home price trends?
but a bit off-topic

Photo credit: Nicholas Lannuzel/Flicker via Fortune.com

Photo attached to Fortune article entitled "Singapore is hot" By Katherine Ryder from December of 2010.

I recall reading maybe 2 or 3 years ago an article of Super Cities where the uber rich were investing (especially Asian investors) looking for safe places to park their fortunes, that included Sidney, Singapore, Istanbul, London and NYC. Other cities have been noted in different global analysis.

According to an article in USA Today by Kim Hjelmgaard in June:

They invested approximately $25 billion in cross-border residential real estate in 2014, according to Chicago-based Jones Lang LaSalle, an investment management company that specializes in property.

This article also mentions Vancouver BC, Miami and Panama City.

Tonight I found this article on Bloomberg Business:
"No End in Sight for Slide in Singapore Home Prices as Rates Rise"

You never know what tomorrow will bring.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.businessden.com/2015/09/09/22m-project-ready-to-rise-on-tennyson/#newsletter

[corey]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Home price trends?
but a bit off-topic

Photo credit: Nicholas Lannuzel/Flicker via Fortune.com

Photo attached to Fortune article entitled "Singapore is hot" By Katherine Ryder from December of 2010.

I recall reading maybe 2 or 3 years ago an article of Super Cities where the uber rich were investing (especially Asian investors) looking for safe places to park their fortunes, that included Sidney, Singapore, Istanbul, London and NYC. Other cities have been noted in different global analysis.

According to an article in USA Today by Kim Hjelmgaard in June:

This article also mentions Vancouver BC, Miami and Panama City.

Tonight I found this article on Bloomberg Business:
"No End in Sight for Slide in Singapore Home Prices as Rates Rise"

You never know what tomorrow will bring.

Canadian cities are about to have a huge real estate crash. Calgary and Edmonton due to long term low oil prices which make Alberta's inefficient oil sands too expensive to refine and Vancouver and Toronto because the influx of Chinese money is coming to an end. Wealthy Chinese and Indians have been putting their money elsewhere. It's really bad considering a high percent of the properties they were buying they expected to be able to rent out. Vancouver has the least sustainable real estate market on the planet. The writing has been on the wall for years though. I wouldn't be surprised if the Canadians quietly drop the Keystone XL pipeline because it's no longer cost effective.

[Pedalrob]

The old church is gone and they apartments are going away today on 12th and Bannock to make way for the new Kirkland Museum. Official ground-breaking is tomorrow with completion some time in late 2017.

[TakeFive]

Pedalrob... I hadn't heard anything on the Kirkland Museum project in so long I wondered what had happened. Good to see some dirt being moved.

Originally Posted by corey

Canadian cities are about to have a huge real estate crash. Calgary and Edmonton due to long term low oil prices which make Alberta's inefficient oil sands too expensive to refine and Vancouver and Toronto because the influx of Chinese money is coming to an end. Wealthy Chinese and Indians have been putting their money elsewhere. It's really bad considering a high percent of the properties they were buying they expected to be able to rent out. Vancouver has the least sustainable real estate market on the planet. The writing has been on the wall for years though. I wouldn't be surprised if the Canadians quietly drop the Keystone XL pipeline because it's no longer cost effective.

That sounds totally possible and not a big surprise.

I just read a Bloomberg piece on how a Suncor led group half way through a $billion project decided they were too far along to quit and will start adding 500,000 barrels a day to the supply next year, a roughly 25% increase in Alberta's oil production.

Canadian oil sells for about a $14 discount to the WTI benchmark (West Texas Intermediate) and supposedly needs an $80 WTI price to break even. That price is currently below $45 a barrel.

[rds70]

A new project planned for the northwest corner of 9th and Grant:



It's 400 unit apartment project. However, Landmark Preservation staff is recommending denial of the project because it doesn't conform with the historic district form. For some reason a surface parking lot is better for the neighborhood than a new residential project. Keep in mind that the old Denver Public School headquarters is right across the street (which I consider one of the ugliest buildings in Denver), and other non-historic buildings line Grant from 6th to Colfax.

Another case of landmark preservation over-reach? Discuss.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by rds70

A new project planned for the northwest corner of 9th and Grant:



It's 400 unit apartment project. However, Landmark Preservation staff is recommending denial of the project because it doesn't conform with the historic district form. For some reason a surface parking lot is better for the neighborhood than a new residential project. Keep in mind that the old Denver Public School headquarters is right across the street (which I consider one of the ugliest buildings in Denver), and other non-historic buildings line Grant from 6th to Colfax.

Another case of landmark preservation over-reach? Discuss.

I think the large scale is outside the norm, but I love the courtyards and the change along the top floor .

For a "historic" district, they sure put up some ugly monstrosities during the 60's-80's.. There are many buildings that wouldn't even get a sniff if they were proposed today. In comparison, I'm sure this proposal would blow them out of the water.
I assume underground parking, right?

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

I think the large scale is outside the norm, but I love the courtyards and the change along the top floor .

The scale is right on (and I personally wouldn't mind even more density in that spot). This proposal is similar in scale in style to this old complex a block north, and there are quite a few high-rises along that stretch of the Sherman, Grant and Logan.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

The scale is right on (and I personally wouldn't mind even more density in that spot). This proposal is similar in scale in style to this old complex a block north, and there are quite a few high-rises along that stretch of the Sherman, Grant and Logan.

I was referring to the footprint. The density is on par with the neighborhood, but other places don't take up the entire block with one construction. I'm not opposed, though.

[seventwenty]

No low rises in Cap Hill.

[Brock Landers]

Tough to see over the fencing but it looks like two tower crane bases at the country club towers site.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Brock Landers

Tough to see over the fencing but it looks like two tower crane bases at the country club towers site.

Makes sense. Those are supposed to go up next month.

Also, I don't mind that Capitol Hill project... It's a short little ocean liner, but I like the setbacks, so it looks like a fleet versus a single ship.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

I was referring to the footprint. The density is on par with the neighborhood, but other places don't take up the entire block with one construction. I'm not opposed, though.

This is a half block. And if you look at the block between Sherman and Grant, south of 11th, you'll see an old apartment project with nearly the exact same footprint taking up 2/3 of a city block. So there is absolutely no basis for criticizing this based on footprint.

Yes, landmark overreach. Institutionalized NIMBYism. Call it what you will. DenvFrancisco.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by rds70

A new project planned for the northwest corner of 9th and Grant:

It's 400 unit apartment project. However, Landmark Preservation staff is recommending denial of the project because it doesn't conform with the historic district form. For some reason a surface parking lot is better for the neighborhood than a new residential project. Keep in mind that the old Denver Public School headquarters is right across the street (which I consider one of the ugliest buildings in Denver), and other non-historic buildings line Grant from 6th to Colfax.

Another case of landmark preservation over-reach? Discuss.

It's kind of weird that the west side of Grant between 9th and 10th is in the Sherman-Grant historic district... Especially since the single existing building on the block doesn't conform to the district's form of early 20th century apartment buildings.

And does that mean that if the developer came back with an art deco or streamline moderne building with no internal courtyard that it would be approved?

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is a half block. And if you look at the block between Sherman and Grant, south of 11th, you'll see an old apartment project with nearly the exact same footprint taking up 2/3 of a city block. So there is absolutely no basis for criticizing this based on footprint.

Yes, landmark overreach. Institutionalized NIMBYism. Call it what you will. DenvFrancisco.

Yeah, the Belmont and Buckingham -- but I think it's the form, not the footprint or the height.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Yeah, the Belmont and Buckingham -- but I think it's the form, not the footprint or the height.

Yeah, that's what rds70 states which makes me curious what the building should look like in their view? I like Fritzdude's and RyanD's observations. Give me recessed balconies and I'm sold.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Pedalrob

The old church is gone and they apartments are going away today on 12th and Bannock to make way for the new Kirkland Museum. Official ground-breaking is tomorrow with completion some time in late 2017.

I worked in that church around 1995. I don't think it's been a church for decades. It was a business when I worked there.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Yeah, that's what rds70 states which makes me curious what the building should look like in their view? I like Fritzdude's and RyanD's observations. Give me recessed balconies and I'm sold.

Unless we can change the fire code to permit grilling, balconies are useless in my book.