DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Agreed! On that lot there is (from 13th to 12th): single story retail, 4-story old apartment building, historic mansion(!!), surface parking lot, 3-story office building.

It doesn't look like a full block long in the rendering so maybe they're going for the surface lot and office building, which would actually be pretty good!

Using the Timeline feature on Google Earth, I was able to find that the October 2014 version of the aerial imagery is the one that shows the red and white car together near the north (left) end of the building in the rendering. That fortunately lines up perfectly with the office building and its parking lot (but not the historic mansion). Also, the office building and parking lot are owned by the same entity but the mansion is owned by a different party.

Therefore, since most of the site is parking and the office building is a pretty ugly thing that doesn't contribute much to the character of the area, I'd say this project is a big win for Cap Hill!

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Using the Timeline feature on Google Earth, I was able to find that the October 2014 version of the aerial imagery is the one that shows the red and white car together near the north (left) end of the building in the rendering. That fortunately lines up perfectly with the office building and its parking lot (but not the historic mansion). Also, the office building and parking lot are owned by the same entity but the mansion is owned by a different party.

Therefore, since most of the site is parking and the office building is a pretty ugly thing that doesn't contribute much to the character of the area, I'd say this project is a big win for Cap Hill!

YAY! Thanks for doing the research. Then yes, this is great news for Cap Hill! Now if we can get something on 10th and Grant!

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by RyanD

YAY! Thanks for doing the research. Then yes, this is great news for Cap Hill! Now if we can get something on 10th and Grant!

...and 13th & Logan, and 13th & Sherman, and 9th & Grant, and....

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Using the Timeline feature on Google Earth, I was able to find that the October 2014 version of the aerial imagery is the one that shows the red and white car together near the north (left) end of the building in the rendering. That fortunately lines up perfectly with the office building and its parking lot (but not the historic mansion). Also, the office building and parking lot are owned by the same entity but the mansion is owned by a different party.

Therefore, since most of the site is parking and the office building is a pretty ugly thing that doesn't contribute much to the character of the area, I'd say this project is a big win for Cap Hill!

There is a lot of room for infill in Capitol Hill. Lots of big empty parking lots that could hold a lot of apartments, particular along this corridor.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

...and 13th & Logan, and 13th & Sherman, and 9th & Grant, and....

Those mid-block lots between 14th and Colfax and Grant/Sherman are rapidly becoming my most loathed lots in the city. The Capitol is such a good building, but those just ruin it.

[DenverPoke]

The number of "luxury" apartments being built/proposed seems to be approaching levels of absurdity. I'm very curious to see how this all plays out the next few years. How many convert to condos? How many become mid-level rentals? What will be the vacancy rate downtown?

Interesting times.

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

I'm very curious to see how this all plays out the next few years. How many convert to condos? How many become mid-level rentals? What will be the vacancy rate downtown?

Interesting times.

But what's even more interesting: what will Bunt be wearing at the Easter Cantata this year?!?!?!?

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

The number of "luxury" apartments being built/proposed seems to be approaching levels of absurdity. I'm very curious to see how this all plays out the next few years. How many convert to condos? How many become mid-level rentals? What will be the vacancy rate downtown?

Interesting times.

I think it's already starting to hit a wall. I wouldn't be surprised if this wave starts to ebb a bit.

Apartment vacancy rates in metro Denver surge, rents dip a tiny bit

Metro Denver apartment rents leveled off and vacancies rose sharply between the third and fourth quarters after a surge in new supply left more landlords scrambling to fill their units, according to a quarterly update from the Apartment Association of Metro Denver.

"The natural forces of supply and demand are at work, and there has been an enormous amount of new apartments added to the supply, so rents are flattening," Mark Williams, the association's executive vice president, said in the report.

The drop in median rents wasn't huge — a $7 decline from $1,252 a month in the third quarter to $1,245 in the fourth. The average rent held steady at $1,292 a month.

But in a sign more downward pressure on rents could be coming in the months ahead, the area's apartment vacancy rate surged to 6.8 percent from 5 percent in the third quarter.

The fourth quarter is typically a weaker period for apartment rentals, but the jump went far beyond any seasonal adjustment. It was the biggest quarterly surge in vacancies since heavy job losses caused people to move out of their apartments in 2008 and 2009.

"It was much more than expected seasonally," said report co-author Ron Throupe, a real estate professor at the University of Denver.

Vacancy rates were highest in northwest Denver, at 17.4 percent; Boulder County, excluding Longmont and the city of Boulder, 14 percent; downtown Denver, 11.2 percent; and north Douglas County, 9.6 percent.

Developers have focused on those areas for higher-rent apartments. Given that owners of new apartment buildings may not be familiar with the survey or may be too busy leasing units to respond, the actual vacancy rate in those areas might be understated, Throupe said.

Supporting the argument of oversupply on the high end of the market, the more-affordable areas developers passed over show much tighter apartment vacancy rates.

Wheat Ridge is at a low 2.6 percent, while Englewood and Sheridan are at 3.3 percent, northeast Denver at 4.1 percent and southwest Denver at 4.2 percent.

[DenverPoke]

Hey Ryan, are you still considering moving to Chicago-land? Not to rehash that discussion of costs, but my wife and I are discussing moving back there and I've been looking at housing. While there are certainly more affordable options than Denver, comparable 2,000 sq/ft houses within a 30 minute commute to downtown and with good schools are A LOT more than Denver. I was pretty shocked, especially when you consider the property taxes. Yikes.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

2,000 sq/ft houses... with good schools

So a detached house in the suburbs. Not to speak for Ryan, but IIRC that's not what he was looking for.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

Hey Ryan, are you still considering moving to Chicago-land? Not to rehash that discussion of costs, but my wife and I are discussing moving back there and I've been looking at housing. While there are certainly more affordable options than Denver, comparable 2,000 sq/ft houses within a 30 minute commute to downtown and with good schools are A LOT more than Denver. I was pretty shocked, especially when you consider the property taxes. Yikes.

I have no idea what we're doing. The reality of it is, my fiancee has been here since she was 2 and I've been here my whole life, so it's time to spread our wings wherever that may be. For just us two, with property taxes and everything, Chicago is still significantly cheaper if you want to buy. We don't care about schools and all that stuff yet since we don't have children.

That being said, I'm still pushing for LA because I think it would be an absolute blast to live there, even with the daily grind. We did the math, we would each have to make $7,000 more a year to move out to LA (compared to Denver). Not too bad. BUT who knows! We said we would revisit this in June as our lease is up at the end of September. Guaranteed we won't do anything until 2017 though (got a lot coming up this year like wedding, immigration, etc). Which is fine, I'm getting used to driving everywhere, parking, and being stuck in traffic.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So a detached house in the suburbs. Not to speak for Ryan, but IIRC that's not what he was looking for.

That's correct! Urban somewhere.

[DenverPoke]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So a detached house in the suburbs. Not to speak for Ryan, but IIRC that's not what he was looking for.

Yes inner city burbs like Elmhurst, Downers Grove... I know that isn't what Ryan is looking for. My point was that Denver really isn't THAT expensive... there is just a huge gap in the entry-level type homes/condos.

[Cirrus]

This is interesting. It shows the percentage of housing in US metro areas that's 1) attached (so either rowhouse or multifamily) and 2) in a dense location. It shows each decade from 1970-2010. Essentially it's a proxy for how much of a metro area's housing is urban versus suburban.



Denver has done OK for itself. It's not seeing the increases of some cities, but it's held pretty steady since 1990, and is showing modest increases now. Essentially, this shows that urban infill is not only keeping pace with sprawl, but actually gaining a little bit of ground.

It also shows how Denver is a much more urban place than Phoenix or SLC.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So a detached house in the suburbs. Not to speak for Ryan, but IIRC that's not what he was looking for.

Shame that you can't find an attached home the city center that has good schools- guess this is indicative of the urban mindset that you either need to be wealthy with children or not wealth and childless to seriously consider an urban lifestyle. Because why should urban centers have good schools? It's not like the urbanphiles on this forum are reproducing (thus they think it's not important), and if they have they're already in the 'burbs.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is interesting. It shows the percentage of housing in US metro areas that's 1) attached (so either rowhouse or multifamily) and 2) in a dense location. It shows each decade from 1970-2010. Essentially it's a proxy for how much of a metro area's housing is urban versus suburban.

Great chart. To me, Seattle stands out as a success story in increasing attached housing stock and densification for a city that hasn't been regarded as an urban environment.

Miami is also up there, perhaps even a better story than Seattle.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is interesting. It shows the percentage of housing in US metro areas that's 1) attached (so either rowhouse or multifamily) and 2) in a dense location. It shows each decade from 1970-2010. Essentially it's a proxy for how much of a metro area's housing is urban versus suburban.



Denver has done OK for itself. It's not seeing the increases of some cities, but it's held pretty steady since 1990, and is showing modest increases now. Essentially, this shows that urban infill is not only keeping pace with sprawl, but actually gaining a little bit of ground.

It also shows how Denver is a much more urban place than Phoenix or SLC.

Very interesting. Since the last column is 2010, do we know through what year the data represents? There's no link to the image source (a clear violation of SSP rules, shame on you Cirrus) It should have been made clear on the chart that the last column is a partial decade. It will be interesting to see what the 2010 bar for Denver will look a little once the decade is complete.

[navyweaxguy]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Great chart. To me, Seattle stands out as a success story in increasing attached housing stock and densification for a city that hasn't been regarded as an urban environment.

Miami is also up there, perhaps even a better story than Seattle.

Seattle is quite dense actually. There isn't any room for single family homes unless you want to spend seven figures. It has not much choice but to continue to density. The burbs here are like anywhere else. Plenty of room for no density.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Great chart. To me, Seattle stands out as a success story in increasing attached housing stock and densification for a city that hasn't been regarded as an urban environment.

Miami is also up there, perhaps even a better story than Seattle.

Look at LA. That's by far the best city at adding attached housing.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Look at LA. That's by far the best city at adding attached housing.

True, but I've always considered LA to be a dense metropolis (car culture not withstanding) and it's success is more a natural evolution of LA continuing to fill in- it's expected. Miami and Seattle didn't have that expectation for me.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

True, but I've always considered LA to be a dense metropolis (car culture not withstanding) and it's success is more a natural evolution of LA continuing to fill in- it's expected. Miami and Seattle didn't have that expectation for me.

You hit it right on the nail. LA follows more of, what I think, the international model of cities. Highrises everywhere with density mixed in well... everywhere too. Main commercial streets are lined with single / two story buildings with a tower here and there, and everywhere. This goes for miles and miles. All of their 'infill' is just replacing lower density. (or parking lots if you're downtown)

In a lot of American / Canadian cities, downtown is it, the place where everything is happening. Go 5 miles outside of Downtown Denver and you're in a whole lotta nothing but suburban / mainly residential. Go 5 miles outside of Downtown LA and it just keeps going and going and going... Every main street is like Broadway / Colfax that goes for miles.