DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by Denver

It’s the opposite. The parking under table is at full use. T2 will be underparked if new parking is not built. There is not a lot of room for a parking deck. You’d either have to be creative or under parked and take a hit on rate. That project is pretty hard to underwrite.

I was just going off of what Denverfillin wrote " Because the existing four-level, 1,700-space parking garage beneath the Tabor Center fulfilled the parking requirements for the entire complex, including both office towers, no new automobile parking will be added as part of the Two Tabor project."

I'm guessing tabor center is running a pay to park thing to utilize the extra spots. If they built this tower, they would have to stop that business and reserve parking for only tenets.

T2 is weird. Why invest all that money in that plaza, then be weak when it comes to building the second tower. I get market forces, but how can they miss the window of opportunity sooo many times.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Denver

It’s the opposite. The parking under table is at full use. T2 will be underparked if new parking is not built. There is not a lot of room for a parking deck. You’d either have to be creative or under parked and take a hit on rate. That project is pretty hard to underwrite.

Really? I figured that the ~1800 parking spaces at the Tabor Center would be more than enough to support two ~650K towers plus the space the retail space that's been converted to office space. I'm sure that the garage is fully utilized, but I expect that a lot of those space are going to monthly users who work in surrounding buildings and can be told to politely shove off to allocate stalls for the new tower given the lease rate increase that the parking would drive.


I figured that it was more so a question of Ivanhoe re-evaluating projects after the acquisition of Cambridge.

[TakeFive]

Wanted: Smart people for Smart City

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...opment.html?iana=hpmvp_den_news_headline

With 35,000 people working at Denver International Airport and more job growth on the way, Mike Gerber figured it was a good opportunity to be one of the first developers to put up housing at Peña Station Next, an upcoming smart-city neighborhood popping up at the last RTD train stop before the airport.

So how's it going Mike?

And the market’s response has exceeded his expectations. Gerber, principal and co-founder of MGL Partners, says his firm’s first apartment development — the 218-unit Elevate at Peña Station — is nearly 40% leased since it opened in March, which is ahead of projections.

That number gives him — and other developers — enough confidence in that market near the airport to launch into other projects at the 220-acre site, even before any amenities, like restaurants and retail shops, open up.

Famous last words.

“There’s momentum out there that’s already starting and once more commercial development starts happening, it’s going to be very attractive from a residential perspective,” Gerber said.

Gerber expects to break ground on a second project at Peña Station Next — a 198-unit apartment complex — sometime in the fourth quarter of this year. Combined, his firm is investing more than $90 million in multifamily development in the new community.

Between the airport, Amazon and Gaylord Resort is it at least affordable out there?

Those jobs likely aren’t the highest paying in Denver, which makes a place like Peña Station attractive. The rents are considerably cheaper than the area's average, Belz said, and when the for-sale product is constructed, some market-rate condos will dip below $300,000. Townhouses might go slightly above $400,000, but not much higher than that.

It’s also attractive to developers. Gerber says it’s getting more difficult — and expensive — to build in Denver, where the cost of a multifamily development could run more than $300,000 per unit. Out near the airport, his firm built Elevate for under $207,000 per unit. Construction costs are going up, but he expects to build his firm’s second project at under $230,000 per unit.

Clearly we're not talking about that many units - yet - but it's a start and it is at least affordable.

[fleury]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

I was just going off of what Denverfillin wrote " Because the existing four-level, 1,700-space parking garage beneath the Tabor Center fulfilled the parking requirements for the entire complex, including both office towers, no new automobile parking will be added as part of the Two Tabor project."

I'm guessing tabor center is running a pay to park thing to utilize the extra spots. If they built this tower, they would have to stop that business and reserve parking for only tenets.

T2 is weird. Why invest all that money in that plaza, then be weak when it comes to building the second tower. I get market forces, but how can they miss the window of opportunity sooo many times.

You are correct. I park there a lot and pay a fee - and they always have signs out there for event parking. That business would go away for the new towers tenant parking.

In other T2 news, its still listed as "under review" on the Denver site development map. I'm not sure I'd consider it dead quite yet. Who knows what will happen!

https://www.denvergov.org/maps/map/sitedevelopmentplans

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Wanted: Smart people for Smart City

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...opment.html?iana=hpmvp_den_news_headline

So how's it going Mike?

Famous last words.

Between the airport, Amazon and Gaylord Resort is it at least affordable out there?

Clearly we're not talking about that many units - yet - but it's a start and it is at least affordable.

what a thought...build "affordable" housing by one of our train stations where there is land, transportation, and nobody has to get displaced aside from the prairie dogs.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Really? I figured that the ~1800 parking spaces at the Tabor Center would be more than enough to support two ~650K towers plus the space the retail space that's been converted to office space.

Rumor has it that a couple of Denver's famous families want to form a Joint Venture to buy the Greyhound site and re-purpose it into a multi-level parking structure. With the obvious growing shortage of downtown parking this investment should be a nice cash cow for decades to come.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I absolutely agree. This is already the longest period of expansion in US history already.

The next recession when it comes could be ugly.

So how soon would you reckon that the downtown spigot gets turned off and becomes rusty?

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

the margins on T2 development should be higher than other office buildings since it doesn't need to waste money on a parking structure, and the foundation is good to go. (Parking for T2 was built with the existing tower)

I have no idea why that hasn't attracted investment...

Can't help but believe this was a blown opportunity by the owner/developer. You snooze you lose.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Is Jamie Giellis a NIMBY?

Yes

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

what a thought...build "affordable" housing by one of our train stations where there is land, transportation, and nobody has to get displaced aside from the prairie dogs.

Exactly!

And for all you anti-sprawl Nincompoops, affordable sprawl is a good, not bad thing. It's unrealistic for lower wage workers to be forced to settle for tech-bros prices and live downtown. The missing-middle while aesthetically nice will never solve the affordability problem.

Those of you who fly in and out of DIA likely don't even notice the great number of lower-wage stiffs who grease the inter-workings of travel. Same goes for all those gritty jobs that enable high-brow commerce to flourish in Denver. While there's a lot of jobs downtown there's even more jobs that aren't downtown. In either case transit accessible affordable housing can enable the metro area to function much better, especially for all those you don't 'see.'

There's over 60 light and commuter rail stations which translates into tons of opportunity for creating more affordable housing. The main obstacle is that larger developers would much prefer to cater to the paying crowd. But over time I'd expect to see other developers taking the road less traveled.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Is Jamie Giellis a NIMBY?

Taken from her campaign website (emphasis is mine):

Cities are living things, and like all living things, cities are healthiest when they grow and evolve over time. Healthy cities adapt to the changing needs and desires of their residents. We want to see our city and our neighborhoods grow and change, but we want these changes to make our neighborhoods more livable, not less. We want changes that benefit us. We want growth that works for us.

For too long now, growth in Denver has been a ship without a rudder We feel helpless as dramatic change happens all around us, and specifically in neighborhoods that have been stable for decades. Denver’s leadership has accepted any and all development without considering how changes will impact the people who live here. It is time to reverse course - we need to stop reacting to growth and start directing it.

As your mayor, I will require that new growth in the city respect Denver’s people and its neighborhoods. That it respect families. That it respect our environment and meaningfully enhance our quality of life. New developments will have to integrate into our historic neighborhoods, enhancing Denver’s unique identity and assets. New development will be assessed based on how it adds value to our lives.

To make this happen, we need leadership and we need thoughtful planning. We also need the courage to require that new growth improve Denver’s quality of life and provides for the equitable economic prosperity of all our people. Denver’s leaders and its citizens must work hand in hand to chart a new course forward. Growth in our city must bend to the will of the people.

https://www.jamiefordenver.com/balanced-growth-that-respects-our-neighborhoods

You have to be up to speed with all of the NIMBY dog whistling terms, but the subtext is that her administration would be anti-growth.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

And for all you anti-sprawl Nincompoops,

Thanks for the name calling. I'm sure this will elevate the conversation and not turn this into another dumpster fire like the last time you decided to stick your neck out for bulldurham.

[Ich]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Exactly!

And for all you anti-sprawl Nincompoops, affordable sprawl is a good, not bad thing. It's unrealistic for lower wage workers to be forced to settle for tech-bros prices and live downtown. The missing-middle while aesthetically nice will never solve the affordability problem.

Those of you who fly in and out of DIA likely don't even notice the great number of lower-wage stiffs who grease the inter-workings of travel. Same goes for all those gritty jobs that enable high-brow commerce to flourish in Denver. While there's a lot of jobs downtown there's even more jobs that aren't downtown. In either case transit accessible affordable housing can enable the metro area to function much better, especially for all those you don't 'see.'

There's over 60 light and commuter rail stations which translates into tons of opportunity for creating more affordable housing. The main obstacle is that larger developers would much prefer to cater to the paying crowd. But over time I'd expect to see other developers taking the road less traveled.

I feel like you and that other dude are speaking out both sides of your mouth. No one said suburban sprawl isn’t affordable (tho I don’t think it’s sustainable) and most people on here agree prices are considerably less expensive than in the downtown core. So not sure what the point you felt like you made there. That’s exactly where people should move to if they can no longer afford to live in Central Denver. But you also hate gentrification and whine about displacement and affordable housing. Yet you want to restrict growth in the central areas to stop displacement but also drive up housing prices? But from what I read property taxes are unaffordable to low income family’s in central Denver so it makes sense for them to move to the burbs where the get more bang for their buck. What i think most people say is displacement is going to happen no matter what so stop restricting development downtown and build smaller/ denser yet more attainable housing to give people more of an equal shot to choose where they live. That also includes the suburbs you excitedly pointed out.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Thanks for the name calling. I'm sure this will elevate the conversation and not turn this into another dumpster fire like the last time you decided to stick your neck out for bulldurham.

Couple of things:

There's a difference with using 'you' as a personal pronoun and using 'you' as an impersonal pronoun. One is personal while other is intended generally. My use was intended as general or impersonal. I hoped that would be obvious enough.

Secondly, it's not unusual for me to insert a little 'humor' even into an opinionated comment. I assume most can discern this although I understand many may not enjoy my humor as much as I enjoy my own.

In any case in a world where liberal - or conservative - talking points must be true since they're repeated so much, I figure if I can provoke any thought deeper than shallow then that's a good thing. Anybody I might agree or disagree with has nothing to do with who they are (although, I do have a weakness for long legs and blond hair).

[fleury]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Taken from her campaign website (emphasis is mine):

https://www.jamiefordenver.com/balanced-growth-that-respects-our-neighborhoods

You have to be up to speed with all of the NIMBY dog whistling terms, but the subtext is that her administration would be anti-growth.

Just below that section she talks about focusing density in former industrial areas and along major transportation routes, then goes into talking about design requirements city wide (think Lodo). She is also anti airport city (THANK GOD) and says that development should be focused downtown and not out on the plains creating additional sprawl and strain on our resources.

I don't think she's antidevelopment at all - I think she's just sick of the crap that we are seeing going up helter skelter around town. I'm all for development myself, but I think Denver is turning into a pile of garbage. I wish someone would require developers to create a more thoughtful product. What we end up getting are the developers from texas who throw up a piece of sh!t then sell it 4 years later for a profit. Without any sort of rules / regulations we get the same product every time. I can't imagine any of us on this forum are into that. In our quest to become a world class city lets not sell our soul in the process.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Ich

But you also hate gentrification and whine about displacement and affordable housing. Yet you want to restrict growth in the central areas to stop displacement but also drive up housing prices?
...
What i think most people say is displacement is going to happen no matter what so stop restricting development downtown and build smaller/ denser yet more attainable housing to give people more of an equal shot to choose where they live. That also includes the suburbs you excitedly pointed out.

That's a bit convoluted and you're incorrect with some of your assumptions. (I'm not any other dude) but speaking for myself I don't hate gentrification. What would be the point? I actually love what has been going on with respect to downtown.

Can I understand the downside of gentrification? Yes, yes I can. I don't think I have any interest in restricting development downtown. Downtown's should be dense. I've even on occasion bemoaned that developers haven't built to the allowed density. What's with that?

Would I support a second-wave urban renewal scraping of Denver history, this time in many of Denver's wonderful and historically significant central Denver neighborhoods? No, no I wouldn't; I have a much deeper respect and love of Denver's history than many do. It's a weakness of mine.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by fleury

Just below that section she talks about focusing density in former industrial areas and along major transportation routes, then goes into talking about design requirements city wide (think Lodo). She is also anti airport city (THANK GOD) and says that development should be focused downtown and not out on the plains creating additional sprawl and strain on our resources.

So, meeting the demand for the 20K to 30K net deficit in housing units the city has will be met by a) limiting density to (mostly) undesirable areas and b) slowing development by instituting protracted design review? Yep. That will work.

Let's also note that the person whose hand is up Jaime's ass pulling the puppet strings, one Kyle Zeppelin, has stated repeatedly that we shouldn't ruin our verdant tree-lined streets in stable neighborhoods with density and change. Rather that change should go elsewhere, preferably far away.

If this is not NIMBYism, IDK what is.

Unless we are pushing for the city to go all in on development and divert/create additional funding for housing where the city starts using public land to build vast tracts of housing, you're not going to get anywhere close to closing the gap. Rather the deficit is only going to worsen and Denver's going to really, really, really start to resemble Boulder and the goodness that city has.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

In other news, micro-apartments break ground in Cherry Creek. https://crej.com/news/pando-holdings-gh-phipps-break-ground-on-135-adams-project/ If only we can get projects ten times this size.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

In other news, micro-apartments break ground in Cherry Creek. https://crej.com/news/pando-holdings-gh-phipps-break-ground-on-135-adams-project/ If only we can get projects ten times this size.

This one was a nice surprise to me. Great location, efficient use of a property. Taking a stab at "affordable." I bet these go quick. You are right, build another 20 projects just like it.

[wong21fr]

Double Post.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

This one was a nice surprise to me. Great location, efficient use of a property. Taking a stab at "affordable." I bet these go quick. You are right, build another 20 projects just like it.

Hell no. Build a hundred of these at least. 3,700 units of attainable housing would be a nice dent in the deficit.