DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Matt

...I'm at a loss for words as to why they would choose such a dreary and putrid color. I simply don't understand the "paint everything dark brown" mentality of Denver that reflects our complete lack of architectural aesthetic so pervasive and widespread in nearly everything we build.

Hmmm. Seems to me they're turning a mundane beige building into a mundane black building. I don't see how this warrants all the drama and hyperbole.

Also "Denver" doesn't have a "paint everything dark brown (or matte black)" mentality. Our skyline generally has a boxy, earth-tone look to it because the vast majority of the skyline happened to be built almost all at once during an era when boxy and earth-tone was the style. It is unfortunate, but you should be mad at 1980 - not "Denver."

As for all the ugly mid-rise boxes getting built all over town, they look just like the ugly mid-rise boxes getting built in every other medium-sized city, (except our ugly boxes generally have a bit more high-quality facade materials due to the precedent for brick Denver is lucky to have). But again, you should be mad at 2019 - not "Denver."

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Hmmm. Seems to me they're turning a mundane beige building into a mundane black building.

That is my point. If they're sinking money into improving the exterior of a 41-year-old building, why not leverage that opportunity to modernize the property's appearance? I do blame the 1980s for Denver's bland and stale skyline, but we can make positive steps forward when skyscrapers are eventually due for an exterior makeover.

The Colorado State Bank building is a perfect example of this; about 12 years ago, its brown lavarock facade was covered with aluminum cladding. Sure, the building still communicates a 1970s design, but post-makeover it has become a significantly more attractive asset to the Denver skyline with a cleaner and modernized facade. In addition, the building can likely command higher lease rates in its current form than it could in its original iteration.

As for 410 17th, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying this building has the potential to be an architectural showpiece by any means; its 1978 form is here to stay. However, when the opportunity arises to refurbish its exterior 41 years after it was first constructed, a token effort to modernize the building's appearance at least somewhat seems like a no-brainer. It would also improve the overall skyline as a whole.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I guess I'm the only one that likes the matte black, at least compared to what that had

[TakeFive]

The resurgent DTC

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...l-boom.html?iana=hpmvp_den_news_headline

While much of the focus on Denver hotels has been on the spate of new and newly renovated facilities flooding the downtown area, the Denver Tech Center and surrounding region has experienced a boom of its own in 2019, greeting a handful of new lodges in 2019 and welcoming at least one multi-million-dollar makeover to a long-standing facility.

Any particular reason?

Soham Bhattacharyya, general manager of the Hyatt Regency Denver Tech Center (NYSE: H), said that the area has become more attractive to business travelers and event planners as Denver hotels and restaurants become more chaotic and as the DTC is just a light-rail connection from the heart of the city. And Joni Sutton, general manager of the Fairfield by Marriott Denver Tech Center North (Nasdaq: MAR), said that as more eating and entertainment options have sprouted in the area, the DTC is being used more as a hub for leisure travelers who may want to travel to Denver or Colorado Springs by day and have a place in between to rest at night.

What about the renovation of anchor Hyatt Regency DTC?

Bhattacharyya said he has seen evidence of that as well after renovating all of the Hyatt Regency DTC’s rooms and adding a 12th-floor ballroom near the start of this year. In May, the first month after the hotel did its official reveal party, the Hyatt Regency booked 1,000 more rooms than it had during the same month in 2018.

Bhattacharyya has gotten a significant boost from the ballroom, a 5,000-square-foot facility with the only open view of the whole DTC area from its perch... As one of just three facilities in the area that does a significant amount of group business, it’s been able to package the renovated top floor with rooms and ensure that 60% of its guests during the week are there for some kind of group activity, he said.

“There’s a lot of times we win competition with downtown, not just from a price point but a convenience perspective. Downtown is becoming more and more chaotic. Parking is an issue all the time,” he said. “We were honestly surprised to see the sudden spike in growth after our renovations. People are interested.”

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by semiurban

Who doesn't like matte black spray paint?

Might it be primer before some other dark color gets painted over it? Seems like paint on rock would require a primer...

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The resurgent DTC

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...l-boom.html?iana=hpmvp_den_news_headline

Any particular reason?

Quote:
Soham Bhattacharyya, general manager of the Hyatt Regency Denver Tech Center (NYSE: H), said that the area has become more attractive to business travelers and event planners as Denver hotels and restaurants become more chaotic and as the DTC is just a light-rail connection from the heart of the city. And Joni Sutton, general manager of the Fairfield by Marriott Denver Tech Center North (Nasdaq: MAR), said that as more eating and entertainment options have sprouted in the area, the DTC is being used more as a hub for leisure travelers who may want to travel to Denver or Colorado Springs by day and have a place in between to rest at night.
What about the renovation of anchor Hyatt Regency DTC?
Quote:
Bhattacharyya said he has seen evidence of that as well after renovating all of the Hyatt Regency DTC’s rooms and adding a 12th-floor ballroom near the start of this year. In May, the first month after the hotel did its official reveal party, the Hyatt Regency booked 1,000 more rooms than it had during the same month in 2018.

Bhattacharyya has gotten a significant boost from the ballroom, a 5,000-square-foot facility with the only open view of the whole DTC area from its perch... As one of just three facilities in the area that does a significant amount of group business, it’s been able to package the renovated top floor with rooms and ensure that 60% of its guests during the week are there for some kind of group activity, he said.

“There’s a lot of times we win competition with downtown, not just from a price point but a convenience perspective. Downtown is becoming more and more chaotic. Parking is an issue all the time,” he said. “We were honestly surprised to see the sudden spike in growth after our renovations. People are interested.”
__________________

What about the renovation of anchor Hyatt Regency DTC?
Quote:
Bhattacharyya said he has seen evidence of that as well after renovating all of the Hyatt Regency DTC’s rooms and adding a 12th-floor ballroom near the start of this year. In May, the first month after the hotel did its official reveal party, the Hyatt Regency booked 1,000 more rooms than it had during the same month in 2018.

Bhattacharyya has gotten a significant boost from the ballroom, a 5,000-square-foot facility with the only open view of the whole DTC area from its perch... As one of just three facilities in the area that does a significant amount of group business, it’s been able to package the renovated top floor with rooms and ensure that 60% of its guests during the week are there for some kind of group activity, he said.

“There’s a lot of times we win competition with downtown, not just from a price point but a convenience perspective. Downtown is becoming more and more chaotic. Parking is an issue all the time,” he said. “We were honestly surprised to see the sudden spike in growth after our renovations. People are interested.”
__________________

__________________

Good to see both the Tech Center and downtown hotel sectors thriving. For Denver, it's never going to be an either-or proposition. Having said that, the Tech Center could certainly use some more "walkable" product, and with two new major hotels in the planning stages at Bellevue Station, it may well get it. I work in the tech center, and a lot veteran travelers who visit our office bemoan the insular nature of many of major hotels down here.

The other interesting development over the past 10 years has been the development of a significant hotel market in Cherry Creek. These have been "boutique" hotels, thus far. I had heard rumors for years about a major hotel being part of the eventual Cherry Creek west lot re-development. That would make sense, particularly a condo/hotel combo similar to Four Seasons downtown.

If in fact that is in line with an eventual Taubman re-development plan, I can't help but think they are also missing an opportunity with the parking lot on the southeast corner of the mall, directly to the east of Macy's and the parking garage.

Talk about an underused asset!! That lot is hardly ever busy, even during Xmas season. It's also is a prime spot for condos and/or hotel - right next to mall, and the Cherry Creek bike path and walking distance to all of Cherry Creek retail. Situated as it is, it doesn't strike me that there's a great retail use of the space, and the original use - parking lot - seems no longer justified, given the potential value of other uses.

[CherryCreek]

So Denver has the lowest rents in the metro area? Good to know.

https://denverite.com/2019/11/01/renting...ver-suburbs-according-to-apartment-list/

Of course this isn't really apples to apples, since Denver has a huge apartment housing stock from the 1940s to 1980s that the 'burbs largely don't have. Older, less desirable product (for many), with none of the amenities that newer buildings have (WHAT?? No washer and dryer in the apartment??? Shared laundry room??? ). I suspect that's where Denver's "affordable"numbers come from.

For anything built in the last 10 years, I would think Denver is as expensive, or more expensive than the 'burbs.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Good to see both the Tech Center and downtown hotel sectors thriving. For Denver, it's never going to be an either-or proposition. Having said that, the Tech Center could certainly use some more "walkable" product, and with two new major hotels in the planning stages at Bellevue Station, it may well get it. I work in the tech center, and a lot veteran travelers who visit our office bemoan the insular nature of many of major hotels down here.

You could probably implode half of the DTC and create a much nicer mixed-use area but since everything south of Belleview is in Greenwood Village there's no point in trying. Maybe after 20 more years.

Election Wisdom

Don't get greedy in tomorrow's election by trying to submit 10 ballots; just settle for the standard 5 ballots and that should suffice.

[InfillJunkie]

Originally Posted by Matt

That is my point. If they're sinking money into improving the exterior of a 41-year-old building, why not leverage that opportunity to modernize the property's appearance? I do blame the 1980s for Denver's bland and stale skyline, but we can make positive steps forward when skyscrapers are eventually due for an exterior makeover.

The Colorado State Bank building is a perfect example of this; about 12 years ago, its brown lavarock facade was covered with aluminum cladding. Sure, the building still communicates a 1970s design, but post-makeover it has become a significantly more attractive asset to the Denver skyline with a cleaner and modernized facade. In addition, the building can likely command higher lease rates in its current form than it could in its original iteration.

As for 410 17th, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying this building has the potential to be an architectural showpiece by any means; its 1978 form is here to stay. However, when the opportunity arises to refurbish its exterior 41 years after it was first constructed, a token effort to modernize the building's appearance at least somewhat seems like a no-brainer. It would also improve the overall skyline as a whole.

Blah. Blah and blah.

[corey]

410 17th Street is a boring building no matter what color it is painted. I do like it better in black though, and it could be a primer as someone else stated. Considering it is such a matte finish it makes me think it could be primer. I think more of a satin black would like better. The 1970’s and early 80’s was a horrendous time for skyscrapers. The black makes this building look more like the Seagrams Building in NYC, which was largely responsible for all of the boxy, dehumanizing, International Style rectangular skyscrapers that followed for the next 40 years until Postmodernism and Neo Deco arrived. Blame Mies van der Rohe and his protege Philip Johnson for all of the boxyiness. Actually, the early International Style buildings (up to the late 1960’s) I don’t mind, but I think the later ones were thrown up as quickly and cheaply as possible with little concern for pleasing proportions, quality materials, etc.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

So Denver has the lowest rents in the metro area? Good to know.

https://denverite.com/2019/11/01/renting...ver-suburbs-according-to-apartment-list/

Of course this isn't really apples to apples, since Denver has a huge apartment housing stock from the 1940s to 1980s that the 'burbs largely don't have. Older, less desirable product (for many), with none of the amenities that newer buildings have (WHAT?? No washer and dryer in the apartment??? Shared laundry room??? ). I suspect that's where Denver's "affordable"numbers come from.

For anything built in the last 10 years, I would think Denver is as expensive, or more expensive than the 'burbs.

They did a similar article months ago, and I actually started writing up one of my cranky posts about it, but I bailed on the post when I realized I didn't really know what I was talking about since it's been a long time since I actually looked closely at suburban rents.

Since then my opinion has changed a bit. I suspect - based on things I learned from this very thread - that developers are having a hard time finding land in the burbs zoned for multifamily. That would make sense to me. This town has always been so cheap that during past booms, even blue collar schmucks like me could afford to buy a SFH. And the burbs were zoned under the assumption that future booms would look a lot like past booms. But this boom is much different. In this boom, a much greater proportion of the people moving here for the jobs being created are looking for an apartment - not a house - because that's what they can afford, and so now, damand for multifamily is far outstripping supply.

Anyway, that's the very unscientific theory I pulled out of my ass. It's probably wrong but for now I'm sticking to it.

Also, the cheapest apartments in town are still in Aurora from what I can tell. Much cheaper than Denver. My very unscientific method for pulling that one out of my ass was a little clicking around on Craigslist.

[awholeparade]

The other question to ask is if this is on a $/sf basis, which I don't think it is. The burbs are building much larger apartment units and getting similar monthly rates.

[laniroj]

I've been working on a rezone in Lakewood (yes we lost the original project due to the growth initiative). The site is a half block from a major N/S arterial and two blocks from a MAJOR intersection - some of the best transit Lakewood has to offer. We've been working with neighborhood associations (ie 10-15 people) since July, trying to figure out what they will support. In that entire time, we've managed to schedule 3 meetings, two in group settings and one with group leaders. We've canvassed homes, businesses, and charitable organizations. Our meetings consist of us presenting our vision BUT with the major caveat, we want to hear what you'd like to see. We bring markers and charts with pictures and other info to stimulate public engagement. Nothing happens, nobody partakes. We sit there with a bunch of folks with nothing better to do whose singular focus is making sure nothing ever changes.

Everyone bemoans growth, talks about traffic and density and how they can't take it anymore. Despite bending over backwards to try and find out what people want and receiving little to no input on any level, begging for meetings, begging for input, people still don't trust developers and blame us for all of the "negative change".

The "engagement" that goes on in greater Denver is a farce (and I suspect nationally too). Local leaders need to wake up and realize that the process is broken. We have a huge chunk of support from the people we've canvassed that far outnumbers the couple of naysayers involved in the RNOs, but can't move forward without the support of official RNOs. Unless RNOs have some threshold of participation, local leaders should just stop accepting their endorsements (or not) as legitimate. Despite months and months of outreach and engagement, this is what that process yields:

"We did not get any interest from our members about continuing meetings with your company about the proposal, so it isn't something we'd organize.

There were several folks who stated they would be against, and would actively object to any change in current zoning for that property (no matter what the neighborhood association decided to support or not support), so you would likely face opposition from some neighbors in the area regardless of any changes to your current proposal if it involved changing current zoning in any way.

If your plan has changed drastically and you have a different proposal, we could email that info out to our members, but at this time there is no interest in further meetings."

I vote we close the entire West Line due to the RTD driver shortage and redeploy those drivers in other places so we can keep those other places at full service.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I've been working on a rezone in Lakewood (yes we lost the original project due to the growth initiative). The site is a half block from a major N/S arterial and two blocks from a MAJOR intersection - some of the best transit Lakewood has to offer. We've been working with neighborhood associations (ie 10-15 people) since July, trying to figure out what they will support. In that entire time, we've managed to schedule 3 meetings, two in group settings and one with group leaders. We've canvassed homes, businesses, and charitable organizations. Our meetings consist of us presenting our vision BUT with the major caveat, we want to hear what you'd like to see. We bring markers and charts with pictures and other info to stimulate public engagement. Nothing happens, nobody partakes. We sit there with a bunch of folks with nothing better to do whose singular focus is making sure nothing ever changes.

Everyone bemoans growth, talks about traffic and density and how they can't take it anymore. Despite bending over backwards to try and find out what people want and receiving little to no input on any level, begging for meetings, begging for input, people still don't trust developers and blame us for all of the "negative change".

The "engagement" that goes on in greater Denver is a farce (and I suspect nationally too). Local leaders need to wake up and realize that the process is broken. We have a huge chunk of support from the people we've canvassed that far outnumbers the couple of naysayers involved in the RNOs, but can't move forward without the support of official RNOs. Unless RNOs have some threshold of participation, local leaders should just stop accepting their endorsements (or not) as legitimate. Despite months and months of outreach and engagement, this is what that process yields:

"We did not get any interest from our members about continuing meetings with your company about the proposal, so it isn't something we'd organize.

There were several folks who stated they would be against, and would actively object to any change in current zoning for that property (no matter what the neighborhood association decided to support or not support), so you would likely face opposition from some neighbors in the area regardless of any changes to your current proposal if it involved changing current zoning in any way.

If your plan has changed drastically and you have a different proposal, we could email that info out to our members, but at this time there is no interest in further meetings."

I vote we close the entire West Line due to the RTD driver shortage and redeploy those drivers in other places so we can keep those other places at full service.

Interesting to get some information on what's going on out there as developers try to work with NIMBYs and get some support for development. It's pretty clear that a significant number of metro Denver residents are not just NIMBYs, but the are NAIMBYs - Not ANYTHING In My Back Yard. Stop ALL further development and growth. I do fear it will get worse before it gets better. I think smart growth and development is critical for the city - and that means greater density in areas that have no real density today. This may be a minority view that will become politically impossible in much of the metro.

[TakeFive]

Median price for a home in the Denver area was $423,200 in October
November 5, 2019 By Donna Bryson - Denverite

According to Zillow the medium price in (City of) Phoenix is $246,400 and the medium price of a home in metro Phoenix is $271,600.

Why the difference? Because there are the tons and tons of low-cost and lower-cost and middle housing that has been built along the way. Why? Because most of the population doesn't make the Big Bucks so that's how it was zoned and developed.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Median price for a home in the Denver area was $423,200 in October
November 5, 2019 By Donna Bryson - Denverite

According to Zillow the medium price in (City of) Phoenix is $246,400 and the medium price of a home in metro Phoenix is $271,600.

Why the difference? Because there are the tons and tons of low-cost and lower-cost and middle housing that has been built along the way. Why? Because most of the population doesn't make the Big Bucks so that's how it was zoned and developed.

The medium income in Denver is $43,000/yr. The medium house is $423,000. So if a married couple both at the medium income earn $86,000/yr, they should be able to afford a medium house at $423,000. So in Phoenix, that same couple would only need to earn about $25,000/yr each to afford a medium house of $271,000.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

The medium income in Denver is $43,000/yr. The medium house is $423,000. So if a married couple both at the medium income earn $86,000/yr, they should be able to afford a medium house at $423,000. So in Phoenix, that same couple would only need to earn about $25,000/yr each to afford a medium house of $271,000.

Excellent thought and good eye.

So I google Metro Denver and Metro Phoenix. Source: the Department of Numbers

• Denver metro median income: $76,643
• Phoenix metro median income: $61,506

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I've been working on a rezone in Lakewood (yes we lost the original project due to the growth initiative). The site is a half block from a major N/S arterial and two blocks from a MAJOR intersection - some of the best transit Lakewood has to offer. We've been working with neighborhood associations (ie 10-15 people) since July, trying to figure out what they will support. In that entire time, we've managed to schedule 3 meetings, two in group settings and one with group leaders. We've canvassed homes, businesses, and charitable organizations. Our meetings consist of us presenting our vision BUT with the major caveat, we want to hear what you'd like to see. We bring markers and charts with pictures and other info to stimulate public engagement. Nothing happens, nobody partakes. We sit there with a bunch of folks with nothing better to do whose singular focus is making sure nothing ever changes.

Everyone bemoans growth, talks about traffic and density and how they can't take it anymore. Despite bending over backwards to try and find out what people want and receiving little to no input on any level, begging for meetings, begging for input, people still don't trust developers and blame us for all of the "negative change".

The "engagement" that goes on in greater Denver is a farce (and I suspect nationally too). Local leaders need to wake up and realize that the process is broken. We have a huge chunk of support from the people we've canvassed that far outnumbers the couple of naysayers involved in the RNOs, but can't move forward without the support of official RNOs. Unless RNOs have some threshold of participation, local leaders should just stop accepting their endorsements (or not) as legitimate. Despite months and months of outreach and engagement, this is what that process yields:

As a member of an RNO and a housing advocacy group, everything you say is true. Denver city council is finally starting the process of looking at RNO reform. The city depends on RNOs far too much to do most of the grunt work, but the trouble is that the most engaged are the oldest, wealthiest, and more established neighbors. Renters, single mothers, and anyone that doesn't care enough aren't or can't be engaged. So, you end up with a bunch of angry kooks that like to stir the pot, sue developers and advocates, all in the name of no change ever anywhere over their dead bodies. They're very effective at whipping up their neighbors into a frenzy with outright lies and hysteria. Meanwhile, developer has become a dirty word.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

As a member of an RNO and a housing advocacy group, everything you say is true. Denver city council is finally starting the process of looking at RNO reform. The city depends on RNOs far too much to do most of the grunt work, but the trouble is that the most engaged are the oldest, wealthiest, and more established neighbors. Renters, single mothers, and anyone that doesn't care enough aren't or can't be engaged. So, you end up with a bunch of angry kooks that like to stir the pot, sue developers and advocates, all in the name of no change ever anywhere over their dead bodies. They're very effective at whipping up their neighbors into a frenzy with outright lies and hysteria. Meanwhile, developer has become a dirty word.

Didn't used to be that way though! I'm a huge believer in communication, collaboration, and consensus but it's just not possible anymore - the people who own homes no longer have the mental capacity to handle these discussions other than to say no to everything. Another 20 years and the problem will be solved. Maybe I'll retire for 20 then come back for a later life renaissance!

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I vote we close the entire West Line due to the RTD driver shortage and redeploy those drivers in other places so we can keep those other places at full service.

When the Lakewood vote was final, I posted much the same.

I suggested frequent Light Rail service between DUS and the Sheridan Station. One of the key tenets of FasTracks was that it would direct future dense development nearby to train stations AND along major transit corridors. There's little point in having much service through Lakewood under the current circumstances.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I think smart growth and development is critical for the city - and that means greater density in areas that have no real density today. This may be a minority view that will become politically impossible in much of the metro.

This is why I posted the info about housing costs in Denver and Phoenix. The upper ends of the market are very similar in both places ie there's only so much highly desired property.

The reason the "median prices" vary so much is the tremendous volume of more affordable housing in metro Phoenix. The "median" is the dividing point of prices based on volume. The large volume of lower cost housing in Phoenix has an out-sized influence on lowering the median price.

Since the end of the Great Recession Denver's new construction has skewed towards higher cost housing which has had an out-sized influence on where the median price falls in Denver given the paucity of new more affordable housing.

It's a metro problem since most people aren't limited by a name or boundaries where they choose to live. Unfortunately the suburbs, as Sam Hill describes are even more important since there's so much more land area in the suburbs.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

As a member of an RNO and a housing advocacy group, everything you say is true. Denver city council is finally starting the process of looking at RNO reform. The city depends on RNOs far too much to do most of the grunt work, but the trouble is that the most engaged are the oldest, wealthiest, and more established neighbors. Renters, single mothers, and anyone that doesn't care enough aren't or can't be engaged. So, you end up with a bunch of angry kooks that like to stir the pot, sue developers and advocates, all in the name of no change ever anywhere over their dead bodies. They're very effective at whipping up their neighbors into a frenzy with outright lies and hysteria. Meanwhile, developer has become a dirty word.

That makes a lot of sense even though Denver is a relatively 'young' city. Only 10% of the population is over 65; another 20% are over 45. But if younger people aren't participating...

More importantly IMO is that - for starters - two blocks either side of major corridors like Colfax, Broadway, Colorado Blvd, Speer/Leetsdale and Federal should be up-zoned.

Then there's been the crazy 'view-plane' limitations on height which at least is now being reconsidered in some places along with density bonuses for affordable housing.