DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[dwalk]

[QUOTE=

(As an aside, and by comparison, Coors Field is a semi-masterpiece both in design and in fitting into its neighborhood (it's only fault is its too big). This is reflected by the Rockies long-term extension there. Compare that to Atlanta, where Turner Field, a stadium newer than Coors Field has already been abandoned or to the Texas Ranger stadium opened at almost the exact same time as Coors Field which is now planned for demolition and replacement).[/QUOTE]

Just curious, why do you think Coors Field is too big?

[yaklof]

Originally Posted by Matt

About time Denver finally figured it out.

One of the capital partners on this project is listing it as 80+ stories:

https://www.greenwichrc.com/acquisitions

Interesting that this link for 650 17th st use to say 80+ stories and has since been changed to 100...

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by dwalk

Just curious, why do you think Coors Field is too big?

A couple of reasons:

* It's sort of the nature of baseball - I think the more intimate (smaller) parks are cooler. Even after the reduction in capacity (now just short of 50K) as the result of the new Roof Top (awesome!), the stadium is the 3rd biggest in Baseball after the Yankees and Dodgers.

* Also, Coors Field doesn't need its current capacity (50)K. Even this year, one of the best in its history, the Rockies have only averaged around 37K.

* Finally, the original plan was for a 44K stadium. This was the team's view of an ideal sized stadium. It was hastily revised in the early 90s in light of the high attendance at Mile Hi. The result was an expanded Rock Pile that I think looks out of place and not in line with the rest of the stadium design.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by yaklof

Interesting that this link for 650 17th st use to say 80+ stories and has since been changed to 100...

Woo hoo!! We've reached the promised land!

[comoneymaker]

Everyone who would have a heart attack already had one over the stupid Target announcement.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

I'd put it on the north end, right up against Speer so it connect better with Lodo and pedestrians don't have to walk through the parking lots. Put all the lots on the S. side.

Bingo!

[DenverInfill]

FYI, we just published our June 2017 Downtown Denver Multifamily Residential Development Summary at DenverInfill. Tomorrow will be the Non-Residential projects (office, hotel, etc.).

Link to post: http://denverinfill.com/blog/2017/06/downtown-residential-june-2017.html

Quick stats:

Residential units completed since January 2010: 10,195
Residential units currently under construction: 7,896

This is using our 1.50-mile radius from the center of downtown methodology. A 1.50-mile radius does a nice job of capturing the formal boundaries of downtown plus a half-dozen or so blocks of downtown-edge neighborhoods like Lower Highland, RiNo, Capitol Hill, and Uptown.

[DenBronco8]

Originally Posted by yaklof

Interesting that this link for 650 17th st use to say 80+ stories and has since been changed to 100...

I wonder if we will hear a major announcement soon.. The developer took their page down a couple weeks ago. Hopefully we get some good news soon

[twister244]

Buy property for $158k in 1999, sell for $2.1m in 2017. Not a bad turnaround....

http://www.businessden.com/2017/06/29/developer-trio-shells-2m-rino-infill-project/

[comoneymaker]

Originally Posted by DenBronco8

I wonder if we will hear a major announcement soon.. The developer took their page down a couple weeks ago. Hopefully we get some good news soon

Usually for a project like this it only happens if its quite then all the sudden a announcement of construction starting within a few months. If not and it says say... construction to start in 2019....then expect it to get nerfed to hell but most likely to never happen.

[corey]

Sorry to hear that the Federal Reserve Bank block is too small for an arena. The new arena right in downtown Sacramento for the Kings is fantastic as is Barklay Center in Brooklyn. I wonder if the blocks they sit on are larger than a downtown Denver block? And yes, I know Madison Square Garden is very ugly and quite run down, and what is now Penn Station is a dump, but I do like how the arena is located on a urban block right in the fabric of the city. Madison Square Garden would probably have been immensely better if it was built today.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by corey

Sorry to hear that the Federal Reserve Bank block is too small for an arena. The new arena right in downtown Sacramento for the Kings is fantastic as is Barklay Center in Brooklyn. I wonder if the blocks they sit on are larger than a downtown Denver block? And yes, I know Madison Square Garden is very ugly and quite run down, and what is now Penn Station is a dump, but I do like how the arena is located on a urban block right in the fabric of the city. Madison Square Garden would probably have been immensely better if it was built today.

I do wonder if the "next" sports arena built to replace Pepsi Center on the footprint of the current property couldn't be a "multi-use development." Build a sports arena along Speer but integrate it with condos, hotels, and office buildings. Why cant a "sports complex" have 40 story towers surrounding it, or even rising out of the same base structure? Thus, instead of building the new arena in the "middle of the city" build a city around the new arena.

Not sure if there is anything like that today, but might make sense for the Pepsi Center site. They could keep parking to the south side of the development (to the West of Auraria Parkway) with extremely dense development, including an arena, adjacent to Speer.

As a practical matter, I suppose Kroenke wouldn't begin any real re-development efforts until he figured out what to do with Elitches (my vote: MOVE IT TO THE BURBs).

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

As a practical matter, I suppose Kroenke wouldn't begin any real re-development efforts until he figured out what to do with Elitches (my vote: MOVE IT TO THE BURBs).

I vote for keeping Elitches until we have filled in most of the huge parking craters in Arapahoe square, the golden triangle, and near Speer/Colfax - areas that are adjacent to existing neighborhoods and would be of greater benefit to the city.

And I don't really understand why Elitches is despised on the board - why is an amusement park close to the center of the city a bad thing? Is it because we're convinced that this could be 1000" skyscrapers? Overall the land is not great:
- It is in a flood zone, so much of it may be better suited for a park or require expensive work
- It used to be train yards and a huge storage tank, has it been fully remediated?
- There are only a few points of access because of the CML, meaning that the city will have to make expensive infrastructure investments to improve access. That money is probably better spent elsewhere.

And why remove a potential cultural/entertainment destination instead of improving it? Keep the amusement park and build structured parking over the surface lots with skyscrapers above...

Or better yet - Build a themed "mainstreet" running to the front of the park from the lightrail station, lined with trees and retail with housing and offices above. Model the buildings of the main street after some of the historic buildings that were lost downtown - the Tabor Grand, the Mining Exchange, The Orpheum Theater... And most importantly, build a Hofbrauhaus-style city beerhall that serves local beers with the eventual idea of having GABF take place in the park like Oktoberfest.

And have that faux-historic Lodo-meets-Disneyland integrate with the amusement park by re-theming the place to be unique - maybe a mining/frontier Victorian theme? We could turn the area into something unique and amazing... Or we could banish it to Commerce City so it can eventually close and replace it with 12-story cubes and Dallas donuts and in 30 years people will be on here wondering why we got rid of an amusement park for another characterless mass development.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

And why remove a potential cultural/entertainment destination instead of improving it? Keep the amusement park and build structured parking over the surface lots with skyscrapers above...

Or better yet - Build a themed "mainstreet" running to the front of the park from the lightrail station, lined with trees and retail with housing and offices above. Model the buildings of the main street after some of the historic buildings that were lost downtown - the Tabor Grand, the Mining Exchange, The Orpheum Theater... And most importantly, build a Hofbrauhaus-style city beerhall that serves local beers with the eventual idea of having GABF take place in the park like Oktoberfest.

And have that faux-historic Lodo-meets-Disneyland integrate with the amusement park by re-theming the place to be unique - maybe a mining/frontier Victorian theme? We could turn the area into something unique and amazing... Or we could banish it to Commerce City so it can eventually close and replace it with 12-story cubes and Dallas donuts and in 30 years people will be on here wondering why we got rid of an amusement park for another characterless mass development.

I think keeping it in Denver has its benefits, but I would hope much more could be done to integrate it into the urban fabric. Take Chicago as an example, with Navy pier. The big Ferris wheel is open to the public and it's available for anybody to walk up and pay to ride. Great views of the city and while you're there, let's grab some lunch and walk around and buy stuff. Same thing in Orlando with the Board Walk at Universal.

I would hope the it could be open to the local resident who could wander through parts of the park without buying a day pass.

[CastleScott]

^ I agree too Fritzdude-great point!!

[twister244]

I don't necessarily despise it, or think it should be removed. In fact, I love driving on I-25 by it at night during the Summer. It really adds a unique element to the skyline that most cities don't have. However, I can't see it staying there forever. It's a sizeable chunk of land right on the river that is only profitable part of the year. If the land is not well suited to build on due to flood concerns, then maybe it could stay there. However, if land continues to be developed over time, slowly eating away at parking lots, then the idea of keeping it there as opposed to selling the land makes less sense. Also, it's going to be really hard for the park to expand, which is disappointing if you are looking for a large park with many many coasters.

[mr1138]

As long as we're rehashing an old conversation, I'll re-state my belief that it should just be re-purchased by the city and turned into a public attraction without ticket gates. Have it be a pay-by-the ride kinda deal operated by a vendor. Add beergardens to it (as others have suggested) - these kinds of parks make most of their profit off of food/drink/midway games anyway. Then redevelop the parking lots into a mixed-use neighborhood (heck, move some of the rides over to the other side of the river while we're at it, and add a few bridges - free up any land that isn't in the flood plain for more development). This amusement park model works great in both Vienna and Copenhagen.



Another wild idea I had, if it does have to move to the burbs, is to actually put it right by I-70 near the Red Rocks exit. It could go where they are currently quarrying away the mountainside. This would be WAY more interesting than out on the flatlands, and could draw the mountain tourism traffic. It could be kind of like where they put Six Flags inside an old rock quarry in San Antonio.



For that matter, our metro area could possibly be able to support both of these concepts. Put the larger for-profit park with room for expansion on the edge of the city, and keep Elitches downtown for evening/weekend midway and beer kind of fun.

Sorry for the large pics. They were the best ones I could find from a google search, and I'm not aware of any method to display them at a smaller scale without re-sizing and hosting them myself.

[CharlesCO]

I feel like a lot of it has to do with the closure of the original Elitch's. That was before my time, but most people I know who remember it feel like the current Elitch's never captured the charm of the original park. Plus, if you wanted it to be like what Tivoli is to Copenhagen, then it would have been better to keep it in its original location anyway.

[comoneymaker]

^^^^ Exactly. The new one has no charm and all the rides suck and is full of nothing but thugs. Well at least the last time I went there like 8 years ago. I want a full 6 flags. Not something with 2 crappy roller coasters. I go to lakeside because it has character.

[pregersthehobo]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I do wonder if the "next" sports arena built to replace Pepsi Center on the footprint of the current property couldn't be a "multi-use development." Build a sports arena along Speer but integrate it with condos, hotels, and office buildings. Why cant a "sports complex" have 40 story towers surrounding it, or even rising out of the same base structure? Thus, instead of building the new arena in the "middle of the city" build a city around the new arena.

Not sure if there is anything like that today, but might make sense for the Pepsi Center site. They could keep parking to the south side of the development (to the West of Auraria Parkway) with extremely dense development, including an arena, adjacent to Speer.

As a practical matter, I suppose Kroenke wouldn't begin any real re-development efforts until he figured out what to do with Elitches (my vote: MOVE IT TO THE BURBs).

Check out the Ice District in Edmonton. The towers are still under construction but the arena is up and running.