DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

They added two two new substations to provide power to the line and the concessionaire has an agreement with the local utility, Xcel Energy, to purchase power off of the existing grid. So a lack of generating capacity shouldn't be an issue. Is it really a thing that other transit systems have their own power generating stations? Seems terribly inefficient.

The problem might be that our commuter rail network uses 25K 60hz AC current, not DC, and it sounds as if there might be some teething issues there.

Hmm well I can find examples of both self-generated schemes and utility-supplied schemes. Historically, railroads that ran freight under wire (i.e. the Pennsylvania, Milwaukee, and New Haven) had internal generation -- the first two mainly by hydroelectricity -- while schemes used mainly for commuter railroad propulsion, like the former Reading system around Philadelphia and the former Illinois Central system around Chicago, seem to have been utility-fed.

In the modern era, Amtrak's Northend Electrification uses a utility-fed 25 kV 60 Hz system, and it appears that recent NJT projects (redoing the Morris & Essex's electrification and the far end of the North Jersey Coast Line) have moved to a 25 kV 60 Hz standard as well.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2...m_term=0_e8b1506f0c-c59d5641f2-147998669

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

No it is the land. Is a old duplex worth 650k in Wash Park? No. But if you buy it demo it and build a huge house, then the lot and house becomes worth 1.2 mill even though the construction only cost 300k.

http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Den...,39.672643,-104.993356_rect/14_zm/0_mmm/

Dude, put down the bong. Nobody was talking about Wash Park. And citing Zillow as a source for anything is proof positive you don't know what you're talking about.

[RyanD]

Alexan Uptown...

...is a BIG girl...

[bunt_q]

Good God. Even the Soviets didn't build them that big, it would've made them too tempting a target for a tactical strike.

[The Dirt]

Can we get that City Park view plane fixed? The western edge is ridiculous:

super old Denver Infill post

The height of the Uptown Alexan is definitely determined by the view plane and not the zoning so much. When I look east from my building at 18th and Sherman, you can actually see the view plane by the tops of the buildings.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Good God. Even the Soviets didn't build them that big, it would've made them too tempting a target for a tactical strike.

Its really a shame that of the developers out there, Trammel Crow had to be the most bullish on denver. We now get to look forward to two more similar Alexan monstrosities a few blocks away. Yippee.

I hope (and suspect) the Southern Land Uptown project will be significantly better than this.

[Robert.hampton]

On another note the lot across the street (and across from One City Block) used to be on the market and it looks like it was taken off. I wonder if they found a buyer?

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Its really a shame that of the developers out there, Trammel Crow had to be the most bullish on denver. We now get to look forward to two more similar Alexan monstrosities a few blocks away. Yippee.

I hope (and suspect) the Southern Land Uptown project will be significantly better than this.

Don't hate on TCR. Hate on our zoning code for letting this happen. They're building nice, more slender products elsewhere:


http://brighamyen.com/2015/08/12/breakin...-tower-coming-to-9thhill-in-downtown-la/


http://brighamyen.com/2015/08/12/breakin...-tower-coming-to-9thhill-in-downtown-la/


http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/tag/trammell-crow-residential/

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Don't hate on TCR. Hate on our zoning code for letting this happen. They're building nice, more slender products elsewhere:

True, many of the developers that have fueled Denver's growth will build an occasional nicer tower in select markets. That North Texas ie. Dallas market is so huge I gave up trying to follow it (or maybe it was a different time priority). TCR is very active there and this nicer project may be one out of a dozen. Fair point about the zoning though.

I'm looking at my updated list of pipeline projects and according to rds70 ten are in design review. I'm content to hope at least half manage to break ground by the end of the year. Depending, that would add another 1,500-2,000 units for delivery in 2018 which sounds very realistic. Add another 1,500-2,000 units breaking ground in 2017 sounds like a good pipeline. Most of these units would deliver in 2019.

[The Dirt]

This is one sharp looking building:

Denver Cityscape 5/27/16

It's got the added bonus of blocking that white POS Barkley Tower.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

No it isn't. That's the house. You can't really redevelop it, so the land is worthless. That's just what a 900 sf house costs here.

That's what it costs here. Because of location. Because of land. You're not seriously going to argue it's the building, as opposed to the location, that's driving that cost, are you? If that exact same house were picked up and moved to Castle Rock, it would cost maybe $300,000.

As for redevelopment, I doubt very seriously that regulations prevent a pop-up.

[TakeFive]

I don't recall this being posted... admittedly not a development of note.

"Lifescape Colorado invests in site along South Platte River"
Featured in CREJ’s May 8-31, 2016, issue

"Known as the “catfish,” the church building at 455 S. Platte River Drive will house a longtime Denver landscape architecture, construction and maintenance company." - Featured in CREJ’s May 8-31, 2016, issue

A high-end landscape architecture, construction and maintenance company is growing out of River North and influencing the future of another Denver area.

Lifescape Colorado is moving its operations and yard to 455 S. Platte River Drive. The 3.44-acre site includes a 59,149-square-foot former church.

Part of an 11-acre “catalytic” site identified in the city of Denver’s South Platte Corridor Study, the church building sits in a commercial area where neighbors have been hoping for reinvestment, including landscaping to beautify areas between parking lots and South Platte River Drive.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

That's what it costs here. Because of location. Because of land. You're not seriously going to argue it's the building, as opposed to the location, that's driving that cost, are you? If that exact same house were picked up and moved to Castle Rock, it would cost maybe $300,000.

As for redevelopment, I doubt very seriously that regulations prevent a pop-up.

So you're saying that anything within a 2 mile radius of downtown is virtually unaffordable to 85% of the population? I'll believe it.

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Anybody have any info on sales? I am sure it's double, maybe triple, what I can afford. But I used to live right across the street from these. Would go back in a heartbeat if I wouldn't have to sell vital organs to do so.

These are not market rate but I'm not sure what percentage of AMI they are targeting. I want to say it's 80% but I'm probably wrong. DHA owned the land and worked closely with the neighborhood and the builder to design a project that was "affordable" and met landmark guidelines. I bet info can be found through DHA.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

So you're saying that anything within a 2 mile radius of downtown is virtually unaffordable to 85% of the population? I'll believe it.

The median household income is theoretically plenty for a large percentage of what's built. So at least 50% should be able to afford it.

Realistically, the most common demographics for urban housing are singles, couples, people with roommates, empty nesters, and sometimes people with very young kids. Some of these groups tend to earn less than median, and some tend to have lower living expenses allowing them to spend more on housing.

Someone at income percentile 50 would need to not have certain other things (debt, car, kids), but they could do it, even without the roommate.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

So you're saying that anything within a 2 mile radius of downtown is virtually unaffordable to 85% of the population? I'll believe it.

Not exactly. Detached houses near the core are inherently in short supply, because there's inherently a limit on how many you can have, because there's finite land within a 2 mile radius of downtown. Apartments & condos are different. Theoretically we could add a million apartments/condos and it would satisfy the demand for them (and make apartments/condos affordable to all). We haven't done that because of policy decisions that are wrongheaded, but theoretically changeable; there's no psychical limitation to the number of apartments we could fit in central Denver, if we allowed them to be built. But for detached houses, there will never be enough near downtown because it's physically impossible to add much more land for them.

So no. I am not saying "anything within a 2 mile radius of downtown is unaffordable." I'm saying anything that relies on having its own piece of land within a 2 mile radius of downtown is what's unaffordable.

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

These are not market rate but I'm not sure what percentage of AMI they are targeting. I want to say it's 80% but I'm probably wrong. DHA owned the land and worked closely with the neighborhood and the builder to design a project that was "affordable" and met landmark guidelines. I bet info can be found through DHA.

Yeah the only reason why these look so good was because of the neighborhood design review. I saw the emails exchanged on this project and the developer was pretty responsive to the neighborhood feedback too. The Curtis Park neighbors really get involved in what gets built in their hood and it shows. Kudos to them.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So no. I am not saying "anything within a 2 mile radius of downtown is unaffordable." I'm saying anything that relies on having its own piece of land within a 2 mile radius of downtown is what's unaffordable.

Which is everything. The limits on building to the theoretical skies are a real as the physical constraints on land. Zoning, neighbors, the political process - how are these any less tangible than the land itself? No... I am coming around to the idea that unaffordability is the only possible outcome. That urbanism and affordability are, in an environment where decisions makers are accountable to an electorate, inherently incompatible. Urbanism as we conceive of it is a rich person's game. We do not have a single example of an economically successful place (that I can think of) that is affordable and isn't also sprawling.

[Cirrus]

1. The differences between the multifamily market and the detached market are real and matter. Denver does have very real problems with condo law and NIMBYism, but those problems do not give you carte blanche to declare all things the same.

2. It's ridiculous to suggest that somehow a place merely being urban makes it inherently unaffordable. Scarcity is what's inherently expensive, not urbanity. In Denver and in other healthy US cities urbanity is scarce and therefore unaffordable, but that's a specific circumstance caused by specific events, not a rule of nature. Paris is an instructive example: Central Paris is expensive, but the "suburbs" are far more urban than any neighborhood in Denver, and many of them are perfectly affordable. In Paris, being within walking distance of Tuileries is a scarcity, but urbanity itself is abundant and achievable for nearly everyone.

So yes, we have massive structural problems that will take decades to solve. But they are solvable, now that we realize we care about them. That's how human civilization works.

In short: Stop being such a curmudgeon.