DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by enjo13

Does anyone have renderings of whatever is happening at 41st and Tennyson? I've expressed my "build baby build" sentiment in the past, but this is the first building I've seen that stopped me in my tracks for it's pure ugliness (at least at the current incomplete stage). It just looms over the block in a really weird way... I'm hoping it's going to come out..somehow...better?

Streetcar Lofts:

http://www.streetcarlofts.net/

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Plus the fee simple nature of these townhomes. Don't see them going away. Hopefully they will engage the street face better though which would inevitably cut down on the number of units you could squeeze in.

You're probably right. But I spend a lot of time walking through Uptown and City Park West, and I see many single or double lot condo buildings that were clearly built during the previous decade's boom. If they could pencil out ten years ago, often with underground parking, I would hope they could make it work now (especially if the courts put the arbitration issue to rest, as bunt explained).

And frankly I don't mind the townhome projects, courtyards or not. It's just that those are usually expensive, family-sized units. It would be nice to have less expensive, smaller units to provide housing for different household types (like me!)

[Stonemans_rowJ]

There are people who disagree and think that the entire reason condos are absent is due to insurance rates, but...

The mortgage world was much more freewheeling for condos back then.

The numbers don't really pencil out that well FOR BUYERS, and this is before we get the moonshot of rental inventory that is coming.

It is absolutely cheaper to rent (same store) if you don't have 20% down. People who think it's not should really run an analysis.

In an unrelated story, Is there anyone on the city council who is forward thinking about parking, development, affordability, etc.? I see they voted 12-0 for the moratorium on small lot parking requirements.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

There are people who disagree and think that the entire reason condos are absent is due to insurance rates, but...

The mortgage world was much more freewheeling for condos back then.

I wonder what we'd find if we looked into Portland, a city of like size with similar demographics and housing prices, but without the defects/litigation issue (as far as I know). Are they seeing many condo projects? Any smaller infill for-sale buildings in the residential hoods? Maybe I need to head over to the Portland forum...

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

In an unrelated story, Is there anyone on the city council who is forward thinking about parking, development, affordability, etc.? I see they voted 12-0 for the moratorium on small lot parking requirements.

Apparently the council took up the issue because of RNOs speaking up after only a small number of projects had been proposed. If it only takes a few voices to get the city to vote on a moratorium like this, what would happen if the pro-building/anti-parking minimum contingent starting blowing up inboxes and showing up at meetings?

[bunt_q]

I love how the legislature orders a study of these things - including, how the condo mix differs between the Denver market and other peer markets. DRCOG does the study, makes it public. And everybody just ignores it because they don't like it. It's liberal climate change denial - ignore facts that go against preconceived notions. I used to think the left was better, and that fact-denial was limited to conservatives, but the condo issue has proven to me that we are exactly the same.

[ejwill04]

A

[ejwill04]

Edit: how do you quote someone and have it appear within your post?

Apparently the council took up the issue because of RNOs speaking up after only a small number of projects had been proposed. If it only takes a few voices to get the city to vote on a moratorium like this, what would happen if the pro-building/anti-parking minimum contingent starting blowing up inboxes and showing up at meetings?[/QUOTE]

I live in capitol hill in a small apartment building that has a parking per unit ratio of ~0.35. My rent is considerably cheaper than the Denver average, and I like to think the lack of parking significantly impacts the price. I don't own a car, and I would hate having to subsidize someone else's car use in my rent. I find it appalling that the city would want to encourage more people to drive cars impacting both the environment and traffic.

My roommate owns a car and can usually find parking within five minutes, even during the evenings. This is in a neighborhood with the highest density in the city! From my perspective, we don't have a parking problem in this city. If anything, we should be encouraging more units to come online without parking to reduce rents and encourage alternative transportation use.

I'd like to be more proactive in my stance on this rather then just lamenting on a forum. Anyone have any ideas?

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Apparently the council took up the issue because of RNOs speaking up after only a small number of projects had been proposed. If it only takes a few voices to get the city to vote on a moratorium like this, what would happen if the pro-building/anti-parking minimum contingent starting blowing up inboxes and showing up at meetings?

We could follow Seattle's lead (again) and disassociate ourselves from the RNOs.

[corey]

I agree. I like bail bond row also. It has character and "grit." There are plenty of parking lots around there that could be redeveloped first. The parking lots are probably owned by the Dikeaus and Gellers who are happy to keep them as the are and rake in all the money from people going to the courthouse and other government facilities around there. Easy to tear down some old delapidated small houses.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

We could follow Seattle's lead (again) and disassociate ourselves from the RNOs.

I really like Ed Murray. A mayor with the cojones to call out the ongoing racial motivations behind (some) zoning. Too bad HALA's single family reform was killed. Could have set a wonderful precedent for American cities.

Originally Posted by ejwill04

I'd like to be more proactive in my stance on this rather then just lamenting on a forum. Anyone have any ideas?

There has been some growing rumbling about creating a YIMBY-type organization for Denver. Send a PM to Ken (DenverInfill) about your interest; I believe he's working on that (not sure how he has the time to do so, but bless him). In the meantime, emailing your councilperson ahead of votes like this and being present/speaking at relevant city council meetings would be a great start--NIMBYs and developers are usually the only ones motivated enough to show up to those. Also, since housing affordability and gentrification are about the only things Denverites seem to talk about, you should have plenty of opportunity to make a logical case to your neighbors and friends for increased development and less restriction/red tape. Maybe you'll win some over.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I love how the legislature orders a study of these things - including, how the condo mix differs between the Denver market and other peer markets. DRCOG does the study, makes it public. And everybody just ignores it because they don't like it. It's liberal climate change denial - ignore facts that go against preconceived notions. I used to think the left was better, and that fact-denial was limited to conservatives, but the condo issue has proven to me that we are exactly the same.

I believe you're speaking of this: https://drcog.org/documents/123065-Report%20102913_final.pdf

Quite interesting--I didn't know this existed. Bookmarked.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I love how the legislature orders a study of these things - including, how the condo mix differs between the Denver market and other peer markets. DRCOG does the study, makes it public. And everybody just ignores it because they don't like it. It's liberal climate change denial - ignore facts that go against preconceived notions. I used to think the left was better, and that fact-denial was limited to conservatives, but the condo issue has proven to me that we are exactly the same.

I don't think anyone is ignoring this study.

https://drcog.org/documents/123065-Report%20102913_Final.pdf

The study you reference lists 3 peer cities: San Francisco, San Diego, and Dallas.

Dallas as a percent had fewer condo permits than Denver.

The number of condos in even SF and San Diego have dropped off a cliff from per-recession figures, plus are these really peer cities?

For instance, Denver has double the SFH permits in 2013 than both of those cities. Where do you build SFH in San Francisco? You HAVE to build condos there if you are going to build anything.

Then the study goes on to talk about the lending...

Lending
Lending, specifically the availability of loans for housing construction projects, has had an impact
on the number of attached for-sale developments. High risk lending practices and appraisal
standards were in fact contributing factors to the collapse of the housing market that led to the
collapse of multiple banks and financial institutions beginning with the recession in 2007 to 2010.
Lending Conditions
Federal regulators reacted by imposing more stringent lending standards including higher presales
and equity requirements. Lenders eliminated ‘soft’ presales and mandated more stringent
requirement to ensure future end-buyers were ‘real.’ The tougher presale requirement created
an additional challenge for developers as they could not generate a sufficient number of buyers
that were qualified and willing to wait until completion of construction. As projects were delayed
due to an insufficient number of buyers, those who committed originally withdrew given the
extended duration of the project. These trends exacerbated the cycle and developers were not
able to achieve the presale thresholds needed to secure construction loans.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by corey

I agree. I like bail bond row also. It has character and "grit." There are plenty of parking lots around there that could be redeveloped first. The parking lots are probably owned by the Dikeaus and Gellers who are happy to keep them as the are and rake in all the money from people going to the courthouse and other government facilities around there. Easy to tear down some old delapidated small houses.

I think they tried to include the parking lot into the assemblage and they declined.

[ejwill04]

Denver Cityscape just posted an updated rending of the 15th and Wewatta 90-unit micro apartments. Good news, there is no parking proposed as part of this project! Even better is how well this project utilizes a small lot to add density to this part of downtown.



http://www.denver-cityscape.com/. Published 8/26/16.

[pablosan]

Originally Posted by JR_xox

16th & Chestnut (and good bits of adjacent site 1709 Chestnut) webcams:

https://app.oxblue.com/open/saunders/16

1709 Chestnut webcam:

https://app.oxblue.com/open/saunders/1709

These are some awesome web cams.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/r...OBYu5F%2FO7W7Amf&t=1472493587&j=75593802

[comoneymaker]

When we hit 500 it will be time to start a new thread. Long over due.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

There are people who disagree and think that the entire reason condos are absent is due to insurance rates, but...

The mortgage world was much more freewheeling for condos back then.

The numbers don't really pencil out that well FOR BUYERS, and this is before we get the moonshot of rental inventory that is coming.

It is absolutely cheaper to rent (same store) if you don't have 20% down. People who think it's not should really run an analysis.

It's not just insurance rates but rather why the insurance rates have been so punitive. If you develop a larger project lawyers can have a party trying to eat your shorts. It's their contingency fees that benefit only them that make the risk unattractive in a market where there's no shortage of alternative investments.

I recently read (somewhere) that insurance adds about $15,000 per unit. How much of that was bcuz of litigation risk wasn't defined.

Pre-recession the mortgage industry was indeed freewheeling but we've also had non-freewheeling markets where condos sold just fine.

Can't speak specifically to how condos might pencil but those that are being built seem to be selling quickly. Buying of course gives one ownership of a potentially appreciating asset with fixed P&I payments (assuming a fixed rate mortgage).

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

I don't think anyone is ignoring this study.

The study you reference lists 3 peer cities: San Francisco, San Diego, and Dallas.

Couple of issues with that study. It's rather dated at this point. While dated through part of 2013 the data goes back to 2000/2003 and too much has changed since the recession.

But bunt is absolutely correct that it boils down to politics and special interests (on both sides). That's not to say there aren't rational (sounding) arguments on each side. Such is the nature of politics. I could counter your own points and back and forth we could go.

Sometimes it's best to pull away from the noise and look at the bigger picture. How 'bout we take a more common sense and rational approach that merely levels the playing field with other cities where the litigation risk is normal or sane and then let the market do what it wants to do?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

We could follow Seattle's lead (again) and disassociate ourselves from the RNOs.

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

I really like Ed Murray. A mayor with the cojones to call out the ongoing racial motivations behind (some) zoning. Too bad HALA's single family reform was killed. Could have set a wonderful precedent for American cities.

I'm sure it's the growing curmudgeon side of me as opposed to the still barely clinging to my historical liberal roots that has become tired of the incessant need to divide us along racial lines. Arguments may indeed have merit but they can become a little conspiracy sounding in the name of a good cause as well. Whatever happened 100 years ago isn't all that relevant towards determining what good policy is today. That also can apply to the 'religion' of urbanism.

The views of those who live in existing neighborhoods needs to be respected IMO. Those neighborhoods create a wonderful tapestry of Denver history and uniqueness. Change may be inevitable but we should proceed with caution. Sometimes "You don't know what you got till it's gone." I'll credit Big Yellow Taxi.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I'm sure it's the growing curmudgeon side of me as opposed to the still barely clinging to my historical liberal roots that has become tired of the incessant need to divide us along racial lines. Arguments may indeed have merit but they can become a little conspiracy sounding in the name of a good cause as well. Whatever happened 100 years ago isn't all that relevant towards determining what good policy is today. That also can apply to the 'religion' of urbanism.

The views of those who live in existing neighborhoods needs to be respected IMO. Those neighborhoods create a wonderful tapestry of Denver history and uniqueness. Change may be inevitable but we should proceed with caution. Sometimes "You don't know what you got till it's gone." I'll credit Big Yellow Taxi.

Agreed. There's some tendency among some to see any push back against developers as Nimbyism. I'm in favor of smart development . For Denver, that means MORE density but not necessarily everywhere, or everywhere in the same way. The new Lodo development with no parking probably makes perfect sense for that area (literally across the street from the regions largest transit center), but probably doesn't make sense in Hilltop.

Existing and long time residents have every right to oppose whatever development they want to oppose. And developers and their supporters can advocate as they will. That's how politics are supposed to work. From the scale of redevelopment that's gone on in Denver in the past 10 years, I'd say developers have won more than their fair share of battles.

I want a thriving growing city (both Denver and the metro area), with quality development, improving transit, and a sustainable economy. I support more growth and more density. That doesn't mean developers should be able to build whatever they want wherever they want. It also doesn't mean that we should permanently be bound by any particular growth plan, city zoning, or "vision plan" that was developed 5, 10 or 20 years ago, just as the persons who drafted those things were not bound by their predecessors work. We should continue to learn and adjust as the city grows.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

When we hit 500 it will be time to start a new thread. Long over due.

Why does that matter? The same conversation is going to be taking place...

So 1144 is going to be pretty awesome and gap-filling from this Cherry Creek angle!