HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8221  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 10:58 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 21,097
To do that, they'd need to:
1. Close down the top existing level or two during the project.
2. Build parking on top to serve the new building.
3. Then build residences on top of that.

Unless the current garage is substantially larger than they need for the current tower, it all sounds unlikely.
__________________
"Alot" has never been a word.
     
     
  #8222  
Old Posted May 18, 2016, 11:27 PM
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,215
Anyone know why they built 2/3rds of the parking structure to the top yet the other 1/3 is still below street level?
     
     
  #8223  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 12:11 AM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
Ummmm..... pilings dude?
That is so hilarious (and sick). Somebody made a brief video of it (that doesn't amount to much). Somehow, it triggered the memory of an older lol video interview entitled: The Front Fell Off.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
     
     
  #8224  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 12:49 AM
Denver Denver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by EngiNerd View Post
Was thinking elevator core could possibly be in the portion they haven't finished yet, but it's very unlikely.
It's a 4 story parking garage. I would be pretty surprised if it did not have an elevator somewhere- especially because Skyhouse is a "luxury" building.
     
     
  #8225  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 1:35 AM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanD View Post
I truly love this project. Great materials, great form, perfect for Union Station:

Union Tower West

"Law firm signs first lease at Denver's Union Tower West"
May 18, 2016 by Molly Armbrister - Denver Business Journal
Quote:
Kansas City-based Husch Blackwell will lease 36,272 of the 100,000 square feet of office space in the development, according to the building's developer, Atlanta-based Portman Holdings.
When is this project expected to be finished?
Quote:
The project is scheduled for completion in December, and Husch Blackwell is expected to move into its new offices, located on the ninth and 10th floors of Union Tower West, in January 2017.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
     
     
  #8226  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 1:59 AM
EngiNerd's Avatar
EngiNerd EngiNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Englewood, CO
Posts: 2,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denver View Post
It's a 4 story parking garage. I would be pretty surprised if it did not have an elevator somewhere- especially because Skyhouse is a "luxury" building.
Oh it definitely will, any garage over 2 stories has to, but if it were a building on top, they would have the elevator as a core, not on one of the corners which is probably where its located (looks like the NW corner).
__________________
"The engineer is the key figure in the material progress of the world. It is his engineering that makes a reality of the potential value of science by translating scientific knowledge into tools, resources, energy and labor to bring them into the service of man. To make contributions of this kind the engineer requires the imagination to visualize the need of society and to appreciate what is possible as well as the technological and broad social age understanding to bring his vision to reality."
     
     
  #8227  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 2:03 AM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,383
Not the biggest surprise

"Oil and gas woes finally catching up to Denver office market"
May 18, 2016 by Molly Armbrister - Denver Business Journal
Quote:
After more than a year of low oil and gas prices and bankruptcy and merger news for energy companies, Denver office real estate is finally feeling the effects of the energy market's suffering.

In the first quarter of 2016, the office market had negative absorption of 349,535 square feet, according to the latest data from commercial real estate firm Jones Lang Lasalle.
According to the article, prior to this last quarter active sub-leasing had mitigated downsizing but there were a couple of larger spaces vacated this quarter. The market seems to be taking this in stride and hopefully (maybe) the worst is over?
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
     
     
  #8228  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 3:59 AM
rds70 rds70 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Not the biggest surprise

"Oil and gas woes finally catching up to Denver office market"
May 18, 2016 by Molly Armbrister - Denver Business Journal

According to the article, prior to this last quarter active sub-leasing had mitigated downsizing but there were a couple of larger spaces vacated this quarter. The market seems to be taking this in stride and hopefully (maybe) the worst is over?
JLL is an extremely off on their absorption calculation compared to other real estate companies. CBRE has Q1 2016 positive absorption of 538,675 square feet, and Newmark Grubb Knight Frank has Q1 2016 positive absorption of 264,000 square feet. Cushman Wakefield has the highest positive absorption of 909,000 square feet.
     
     
  #8229  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 4:10 AM
Riverfront Park Riverfront Park is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds70 View Post
JLL is an extremely off on their absorption calculation compared to other real estate companies. CBRE has Q1 2016 positive absorption of 538,675 square feet, and Newmark Grubb Knight Frank has Q1 2016 positive absorption of 264,000 square feet. Cushman Wakefield has the highest positive absorption of 909,000 square feet.
Well, that is a difference in absorption of almost 1,200,000 square feet. One of them is wrong.
__________________
Riverfront Park
Union Station
     
     
  #8230  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 4:14 AM
Riverfront Park Riverfront Park is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 117
Oh, by the way, the garage structure thing at Skyhouse is actually pretty genius. The developer, Novare Group, is building the Skyhouse all over the country. The garage being outside of the building allows them to essentially stamp the high-rise project anywhere and then fill the balance of a site with the garage in a configuration that works. Sometimes they have retail in the garage. Sometimes they don't. But, all in all, it creates a repeatable high rise building. Pretty clever, really. Although it would be nice to see that garage wrapped in retail. I honestly don't know if it will be or not.

http://novaregroup.com/current-developments/
__________________
Riverfront Park
Union Station
     
     
  #8231  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 4:14 AM
rds70 rds70 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Or even say a Ten Story apartment?

Copy courtesy of Ken - Denver Infill

Which, if any of the proposed projects or other projects has broken ground in 2016? Anybody know?
Here is the status of the projects, plus others not on your list:

Residential Project Units

76 2560 Welton 130 - Building permit review (Now called The Lydian)
77 Alexan Arapahoe Square 353 - Building permit review
78 AMLI Riverfront Green 304 - Building permit review
79 Ascent Union Station 142 - Still in planning
80 Colfax Marketplace 74 - Still in planning (Now called Route 40 with 185 units)
81 Coloradan 342 - Building permit review
82 Industry Apartments 277 - Building permit review
83 Market Station 225 - Still in planning
84 Parkside Apartments 161 - Building permit review
85 Renaissance Downtown 101 - Building permit review

Proposed Total 2,109

Others:

Alexan 20th Street Station 354 - Building permit review
SOVA 211 - Building permit review
Legacy Speer 322 - Building permit review
909 Bannock Street (Bannock and Speer) 301 - Building permit review
     
     
  #8232  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 4:47 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 21,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverfront Park View Post
Well, that is a difference in absorption of almost 1,200,000 square feet. One of them is wrong.
They can all be 100% correct. They all count different (if mostly overlapping) subsets of the whole market.

Also, maybe the timing is different?
__________________
"Alot" has never been a word.
     
     
  #8233  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 4:47 AM
Denver Denver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 457
nm
     
     
  #8234  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 5:36 AM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
They can all be 100% correct. They all count different (if mostly overlapping) subsets of the whole market.

Also, maybe the timing is different?
Good points. I also know, for example, that some include sublease space while others do not. One may be referring to City of Denver while another might be referring to the Denver metro area. "Timing" for example one broker might count a vacating space this quarter while another won't count it until next quarter. As you suggest there'e likely good explanations for the discrepancies.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
     
     
  #8235  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 5:42 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 21,097
Yep. And some will include building x which was originally leasable but is now a single owner-occupant. Or they'll exclude the office portion of a building that's kinda half warehouse. Or they'll set the cutoff at 5,000 sf instead of 20,000 sf. Or god forbid they'll include a government building the others don't. Or they'll cut off Boulder.

And that's if they're doing a fairly intensive job of things. Some brokerage reports are pretty half-assed.
__________________
"Alot" has never been a word.
     
     
  #8236  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 3:36 PM
RyanD's Avatar
RyanD RyanD is offline
Fast. Fun. Frequent.
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,988
The Confluence is moving on up!

1/3 down, 2/3 to go!

__________________
DenverInfill
DenverUrbanism
--------------------
Latest Photo Threads: Los Angeles | New Orleans | Denver: 2014 Megathread | Denver Time-Lapse Project For more photos check out: My Website and My Flickr Photostream
     
     
  #8237  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 4:02 PM
CherryCreek's Avatar
CherryCreek CherryCreek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 897
Race Based Urban Planning?

I saw this in Denver Post, talking about the City of Denver's concern about "gentrification."


"What Denver officials, from the mayor on down, want to avoid is the unraveling of the historic, cultural and demographic identities of a community that results when residents are pushed out, he said."

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_29...trification-without-displacing-residents

Of course one person's gentrification, is another person's realization of a long term investment. A minority home owner in Highland who sells their home at 5 X what the paid for it 1985 might think gentrification a good thing.

Of more fundamental concern, though, is the apparent city policy, or at least desire, to preserve the "demographic identities" of the community.

Just think about that term.

What would happen if the mayors of Castle Rock, Parker, or Cherry Hills said they were "worried" that the "demographic identities" of those cities might change and that cities would actively adopt policies to discourage any changes? Wink. Wink.

I'll tell you what would happen, the US Justice Department would file a Civil Rights suit against those cities so quickly their heads would spin.

I understand concerns about affordable housing, and in my view, that's a legitimate issue for cities to consider and find ways to address. But preserving "demographic identities"? What a clever way for the city to openly pursue race/ethnic based housing agendas. If a city can properly say "we think this neighborhood should be predominately hispanic, and this neighborhood should be predominately black" there is no principled basis to prevent the same or another city from saying "in order to preserve its historical demographic identity, this neighborhood should be predominately white."


Ironically, many of the Denver neighborhoods that are being "gentrified" today, resulting in some displacement of lower income minority residents, were themselves once dominated by other ethnic groups (Highland and much of west/northwest Denver was once our "Little Italy") back in the day. If the City had preserved "demographic identities" in those areas 40 to 50 years ago they may never have become predominately hispanic neighborhoods in the first place.

The best way for Denver to help all of its residents is to focus on smart, sustainable growth that creates jobs and business opportunities for all its residents. Focusing on preserving historical racial and ethnic housing patterns is not a legitimate public policy objective.

Last edited by CherryCreek; May 19, 2016 at 4:37 PM.
     
     
  #8238  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 4:11 PM
CherryCreek's Avatar
CherryCreek CherryCreek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 897
OF COURSE Beer is a FOOD

While i totally oppose the crackdown on dogs at some of our brewpubs (great Denver tradition)(see link), I must say I find the logic of the health department irrefutable.

Since I was freshman in College at CSU, I've always been absolutely clear that, indeed, beer is a food, if not an entire food group (liquid bread!).



http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_299044...reweries-because-beer?source=most_viewed
     
     
  #8239  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 4:56 PM
Agent Orange Agent Orange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherryCreek View Post
I saw this in Denver Post, talking about the City of Denver's concern about "gentrification."


"What Denver officials, from the mayor on down, want to avoid is the unraveling of the historic, cultural and demographic identities of a community that results when residents are pushed out, he said."

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_29...trification-without-displacing-residents

Of course one person's gentrification, is another person's realization of a long term investment. A minority home owner in Highland who sells their home at 5 X what the paid for it 1985 might think gentrification a good thing.

Of more fundamental concern, though, is the apparent city policy, or at least desire, to preserve the "demographic identities" of the community.

Just think about that term.

What would happen if the mayors of Castle Rock, Parker, or Cherry Hills said they were "worried" that the "demographic identities" of those cities might change and that cities would actively adopt policies to discourage any changes? Wink. Wink.

I'll tell you what would happen, the US Justice Department would file a Civil Rights suit against those cities so quickly their heads would spin.

I understand concerns about affordable housing, and in my view, that's a legitimate issue for cities to consider and find ways to address. But preserving "demographic identities"? What a clever way for the city to openly pursue race/ethnic based housing agendas. If a city can properly say "we think this neighborhood should be predominately hispanic, and this neighborhood should be predominately black" there is no principled basis to prevent the same or another city from saying "in order to preserve its historical demographic identity, this neighborhood should be predominately white."


Ironically, many of the Denver neighborhoods that are being "gentrified" today, resulting in some displacement of lower income minority residents, were themselves once dominated by other ethnic groups (Highland and much of west/northwest Denver was once our "Little Italy") back in the day. If the City had preserved "demographic identities" in those areas 40 to 50 years ago they may never have become predominately hispanic neighborhoods in the first place.

The best way for Denver to help all of its residents is to focus on smart, sustainable growth that creates jobs and business opportunities for all its residents. Focusing on preserving historical racial and ethnic housing patterns is not a legitimate public policy objective.
I appreciate your thoughts. I agree, it is unfortunate what is happening to some lower income folks (and may happen to me in a few years), but cities are always changing, dynamic, fluctuating places. I like your example about Little Italy. We have to be careful that well-intentioned policies don't have dangerous unintended consequences. Most places that are going from lower income to high income probably were originally built for high income earners to begin with. And River North or Highlands may someday in the future become dumpy again for a while as market conditions and consumer preferences change.

When a neighborhood is in demand either A) the locals will try and succeed at halting or constraining new development, which will have the eventual effect of pricing out all but the wealthy (and a pittance of people living in subsidized units), or B) new construction and increased densification will be permitted and prices will rise at a more reasonable rate (if not fall during some years). It's just supply and demand. It's strange to me how much top-down planning is done when it comes to land use.

I'm afraid of too much intervention by the city leading us down the San Francisco trajectory. If development wasn't as constrained in the yuppie ghettos like Wash Park and Cherry Creek, there'd be (relatively) less pressure to gentrify places like Five Points.

Anyway, these concerns are why I'm planning to attend the YIMBY conference in Boulder next month. If anyone else is planning to attend, hit me up!
     
     
  #8240  
Old Posted May 19, 2016, 5:21 PM
trubador trubador is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherryCreek View Post
While i totally oppose the crackdown on dogs at some of our brewpubs (great Denver tradition)(see link), I must say I find the logic of the health department irrefutable.

Since I was freshman in College at CSU, I've always been absolutely clear that, indeed, beer is a food, if not an entire food group (liquid bread!).



http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_299044...reweries-because-beer?source=most_viewed
hops are vegetables, so beer is a liquid salad. extremely healthy for you.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:06 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.