DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by corey

As for the new name for the Stapleton neighborhood I would go with Concourse, to reflect the site’s airport history. Meadowlark would probably be my second choice. The other names are too generic or are of people I’m not really familiar with. I can see them naming it after a person and years later negative information comes up about them and the neighborhood has to be renamed again.

That's the rational that's been flounced around by my suburban brethren in the neighborhood and I find it to be a weak, spineless excuse to avoid naming the area after a person of color. If the bar is that it was named after a member of the KKK, that's a low clearance. As long as you didn't murder, rape, or molest someone you should be clear.

Mosley is my first choice followed by Meadowlark. Concourse is isn't in my top three, though it's better than Skyview (which is better than that Skyfield POS that was getting pushed).

[i4isoar]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Huh? Austin's CSA (larger metric than an MSA) is 2.3mm, Denver's is 3.6mm. Beltway to beltway, Houston and Austin are 60 miles apart. Not sure of your logic there and only point it out because Austin punches WAY above it's weight for quality of architecture and number of high rises as it relates to population.

Fair enough. I think it all just comes down to how you define "metro area". But I also think Austin's close proximity to other (and larger cities) like San Antonio, Houston, and the DFW Metroplex helps it out a lot, because it means tech companies can set up shop there and still have access to markets and talent in Houston, Dallas, College Station, etc. Whereas Denver on the other hand is relatively isolated (I recall reading somewhere once that "Denver is the largest city for 600 miles in every direction").

Another important difference: Denver's CSA might be 3.3 mil people (or 2.9 or up to 3.6, depending on the source), but the City and County of Denver itself is only about 720,000 residents (so about 22% of the metro area's population). Austin's CSA might be around 2.3 mil, but the actual City of Austin is about 980,000 people (about 42%, nearly twice of Denver's). I think that's important because it shows that, proportionately, more of Denver's population lives out in the suburbs, while more of Austin's is concentrated in the core city, and that definitely drives up demand for high-rises.

Originally Posted by laniroj

I'm not aware of another standalone metro as small as Austin that gets the kind of high rises Austin is getting (but would love to be wrong!).

Las Vegas.

Originally Posted by laniroj

It's all tech centered in Austin, so as long as that tech money keeps flowing, they'll continue getting awesome new buildings. In Denver, we get tech companies like Salesforce who choose to occupy a crappy 1980's office tower! It's just a different way of thinking in Denver...

Agreed. But as I'd mentioned above, I think it's at least partly a matter of Austin being closer to three larger metro areas nearby from whom they can attract talent (including architects and engineers to design those awesome new buildings), attract investment, and also compete against them as to who offers the nicest workplaces or the best quality-of-life. Denver's nearest "competitor cities" are the Springs and... I guess Greeley and Pueblo, so there isn't the same motivation to build gleaming new corporate offices with all the latest amenities. (Though I suppose that for purposes of attracting talent from Greeley, simply not smelling like the JBS plant is an amenity all of its own ).

But I also do believe that we can and should hold our city to higher standards, and I wish there was a way that folks like us on this forum could reach out to and actively influence City Council members, engineers, and developers to produce the kind of projects we'd like to see.

[mhays]

I disagree totally.

The population within city limits has basically nothing to do with the skyline. It also has very little to do with what the city is like on the ground, or what acts like the inner city vs. suburbs.

If Denver annexed another 100 square miles and added 500,000 residents tomorrow, it would have no bearing on how dense that land is, or how many highrises are merited.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

I disagree totally.

You would and while you might be correct you miss the mark.

i4isoar - while I understand your thinking; it's logical enough but it also misses the mark.

Where's jbssfelix (who's lived in Austin) when you need him? We'll settle for a recent quote of his from the Transportation thread.

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

I would agree. Austin definitely has the tech boom going for it, but it's downtown is only as tall as it is because it's core downtown acreage is more geographically limited compared to Denver (bounded by the river, and MoPac/I-35), so a lot of space tries to cram into those confines.

Denver has a lot of open land within the urban core, so there isn't as much incentive to build tall when you can still build out.

The other key is that every place has a history and a story to tell.

For starters Austin is in Texas and Denver is in Colorado. Austin's story goes back to 1992; SXSW was the catalyst.

The other key was that Texas was obsessively on a mission to duplicate California's success. Lacking the Pacific Ocean it's strategy was to be ultra-business friendly. They did have lots of oil & gas wealth to seed their ambitions. Generally, Dallas was the biggest (early) beneficiary.

Then along came Apple.

Apple Comes to Austin

Apple arrived in Austin in 1992 with an office lease of roughly 200,000 SF at Promontory Point in Northeast Austin. In the same year, the company purchased land at what is now 7700 Parmer from the Robinson family with the intention of building a campus for its Austin division.

Apple is notoriously secretive, notoriously cheap in driving a hard bargain. Austin provided the winning opportunity that met their criteria and as the saying goes the rest is history. SXSW was the enchantment catalyst while the University of Texas main campus was surely another plus.

Eventually Google followed with a growing footprint and to a lesser extent Facebook. Plus Austin had their own homegrown companies as well.

Denver/Boulder and Colorado are wonderful places for all the reasons "we love it" but it has never had the Bell Cows that cities like Austin and Seattle have. It has long had a tech presence (going way back to IBM and Hewlett-Packard etc) but it never evolved to the top of the food chain.

But who cares? Not me.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by i4isoar

Another important difference: Denver's CSA might be 3.3 mil people (or 2.9 or up to 3.6, depending on the source), but the City and County of Denver itself is only about 720,000 residents (so about 22% of the metro area's population). Austin's CSA might be around 2.3 mil, but the actual City of Austin is about 980,000 people (about 42%, nearly twice of Denver's). I think that's important because it shows that, proportionately, more of Denver's population lives out in the suburbs, while more of Austin's is concentrated in the core city, and that definitely drives up demand for high-rises.

This argument is completely nonsensical. Every city is a different size geographically which doesn't necessarily correlate to the size of its metro. Some metros (and Austin especially) contain a large amount of suburban development within the "city" while other metros contain very urban areas "out in the suburbs" (your words). By your logic, sprawly, sparsely-populated San Antonio, with its 1.5 million residents in a metro of 2.5 million has far more demand for urban living and high-rises than puny little Miami with 400K residents in a metro of 6 million.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That's the rational that's been flounced around by my suburban brethren in the neighborhood and I find it to be a weak, spineless excuse to avoid naming the area after a person of color. If the bar is that it was named after a member of the KKK, that's a low clearance. As long as you didn't murder, rape, or molest someone you should be clear.

Mosley is my first choice followed by Meadowlark. Concourse is isn't in my top three, though it's better than Skyview (which is better than that Skyfield POS that was getting pushed).

Honestly though people will still call it Stapleton for the foreseeable future. I liked the name Montview but it didn't make it to the short list. Central Park probably offends the least number of people, is the name of the train station that serves the neighborhood, the name of one of the primary thoroughfares and the name of the largest park/green space.

Speaking of Stapleton (see..) there is a new affordable condo building currently under construction at 36th & Central Park Blvd.

https://www.newhomesource.com/plan/centr...-one-bedroom-stapleton-denver-co/1181872

This is near the new Sprouts on CPB that will be opening later this month. The residential portion is supposed to start later this year and includes for-sale condos. This is the first project as part of the larger Central Park Station TOD.

https://frontporchne.com/article/sprouts-village-central-park-station/

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Where's jbssfelix (who's lived in Austin) when you need him? We'll settle for a recent quote of his from the Transportation thread.

You rang?

Austin and Denver are both geographical sprawlvilles with little geographical restrictions (I-25 = I-35...more and more will build along that line ad infinitum). However, as was quoted, Austin's downtown CBD has a relatively small footprint (really about 12 blocks squared). After that, it drops off precipitously. Granted, denser development is starting to leak over I-35 to the east, but that's still 8 stories max with the new Plaza Saltillo development.

Note Austin's explosion of downtown growth from near-nothing (pre-SXSW boom) to now.


Against Denver's bigger, but slower skyline growth.
2005:

[Sam Hill]

Here's my theory as to Austin outpacing Denver in terms of new skyscrapers:

Whatever part of Austin's downtown that is zoned for skyscrapers is a red-hot real estate market. Denver's CBD OTOH, is lukewarm. Denver's downtown neighborhoods that have been red hot lately are zoned for low/mid-rise. If say Union Station or Golden Triangle were zoned for high-rise, we'd be looking at a different skyline.

Also, as explosive as Denver's growth has been, it pales in comparison to Austin. No city in the country has been growing like Austin. It's simply a hotter real estate market.

Anyway, that's my totally uneducated theory.

[Agent Orange]

Central Park is kind of a silly name for the neighborhood, and frankly for the park as well.

Q: What is Central Park central to?

A: Why it’s in the center of Central Park, the neighborhood, of course.

Unlike New York’s CP which is in the middle of Manhattan and is a place of relief and joy for people of all incomes and corners of the island, Denver’s Central Park is self-referential and self-contained, reinforcing the reality that it is closed off to the rest of the city and exists in its own universe. It was a great opportunity to expand the city’s grid and historical mixed used pattern. The street named Central Park Blvd is just an extension of Yosemite, so why didn’t it take that name? Because it has to be distinguished from the (at the time) lower income neighborhoods that surround it.

This is a long time pet peeve of mine. /rant

Also--agree with Sam Hill's take on why Denver's high rise growth has been anemic. Ken has talked about this in the past as well. Our hot areas for the last 10 years are mostly zoned mid to low rise. Given the current state of things, I don't see the CBD becoming a hip, cutting edge area any time soon.

[The Dirt]

I hate Central Park the name, the park, the stroad, and the rail station. However, I hate that RTD names their stations after car corridors, not places. If the neighborhood gets renamed to Central Park, at least the station name will finally makes sense.

Ultimately, the "neighborhood" formerly know as Stapleton still sucks on every level and should be devolved from the rest of the city, then every stroller mom should be tactically nuked from orbit.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Ultimately, the "neighborhood" formerly know as Stapleton still sucks on every level and should be devolved from the rest of the city, then every stroller mom should be tactically nuked from orbit.

Don't hate the neighborhood that's provided the greatest growth to offset the emptying of your sad, decaying Uptown area....


The neighborhood formerly known as Stapleton: Where we pretend we still live in the city.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That's the rational that's been flounced around by my suburban brethren in the neighborhood and I find it to be a weak, spineless excuse to avoid naming the area after a person of color. If the bar is that it was named after a member of the KKK, that's a low clearance. As long as you didn't murder, rape, or molest someone you should be clear.

Mosley is my first choice followed by Meadowlark. Concourse is isn't in my top three, though it's better than Skyview (which is better than that Skyfield POS that was getting pushed).

I'm not a BLM member; call me BLM-friendly; basically my activist days are behind me. I wouldn't object to naming it after a person but not sure over time it's all that important.

Originally Posted by corey

As for the new name for the Stapleton neighborhood I would go with Concourse, to reflect the site’s airport history. Meadowlark would probably be my second choice. The other names are too generic or are of people I’m not really familiar with. I can see them naming it after a person and years later negative information comes up about them and the neighborhood has to be renamed again.

Perfect for my tastes; either one sounds good.

Originally Posted by BG918

Honestly though people will still call it Stapleton for the foreseeable future. I liked the name Montview but it didn't make it to the short list. Central Park probably offends the least number of people, is the name of the train station that serves the neighborhood, the name of one of the primary thoroughfares and the name of the largest park/green space.

Montview would have been fine but I assume it wasn't original or creative enough. Wasn't aware "Central Park" was being considered but it's not bad.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Don't hate the neighborhood that's provided the greatest growth to offset the emptying of your sad, decaying Uptown area....


The neighborhood formerly known as Stapleton: Where we pretend we still live in the city.

Thank, wong. This guys gets it!

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Here's my theory as to Austin outpacing Denver in terms of new skyscrapers:

Whatever part of Austin's downtown that is zoned for skyscrapers is a red-hot real estate market. Denver's CBD OTOH, is lukewarm. Denver's downtown neighborhoods that have been red hot lately are zoned for low/mid-rise. If say Union Station or Golden Triangle were zoned for high-rise, we'd be looking at a different skyline.

Perfectly spot-on.

Again, every place has its own story. In Denver the hot action was initially in LoDo. Then FasTracks seeded the Union Station Neighborhood. Next, it was RiNo along Brighton Blvd that became the new chic neighborhood. With land readily available all the larger apartment builders found it too easy and too tempting.

The CBD did okay with three nice office buildings and more hotels but it wasn't the hot part of the market.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Also, as explosive as Denver's growth has been, it pales in comparison to Austin. No city in the country has been growing like Austin. It's simply a hotter real estate market.

Exactly; west of the Mississippi growth was the trend. Even Salt Lake City and Minneapolis would like a word. Ofc all the Texas cities.

Looking at the MSA growth from 2010 a lot of places had solid growth of about 15% or a bit more. Austin's growth was just shy of 30% which is just amazing.

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

You rang?

Austin and Denver are both geographical sprawlvilles with little geographical restrictions (I-25 = I-35...more and more will build along that line ad infinitum). However, as was quoted, Austin's downtown CBD has a relatively small footprint (really about 12 blocks squared). After that, it drops off precipitously. Granted, denser development is starting to leak over I-35 to the east, but that's still 8 stories max with the new Plaza Saltillo development.

Note Austin's explosion of downtown growth from near-nothing (pre-SXSW boom) to now.

Nice post; as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks for finding and posting those.

I've read about the new Plaza Saltillo development. It only makes sense that with Austin's robust growth that infill-redevelopment would be a part of the story.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Thank, wong. This guys gets it!

Good grief; Stapleton is so far east it's nearly in Aurora. In fact some of Stapleton is in Aurora.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stapleton,_Denver

While Denver International Airport was being constructed, planners considered how the Stapleton site would be redeveloped. A private group of Denver civic leaders, the Stapleton Development Foundation, convened in 1990 and produced a master plan for the site in 1995, emphasizing a pedestrian-oriented design rather than the automobile-oriented designs found in many other planned developments. Nearly a third of the airport site was planned to be redeveloped as public park space.

Their intentions were good.

But think back to what Denver was like in the 1990's. It was a very different place from today. Given the sketchy economy many wondered if Stapleton would ever be successful as 'imagined' by Forest City Enterprises. Construction officially kicked of in 2001.

Call it "different strokes"; it could have been much worse; it does appeal to many people obviously.

[BG918]

Land speculation definitely has not slowed down in Stapleton. There is a 309 unit apartment project proposed for the long-vacant SE corner of CPB and MLK.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...ment-building-proposed-in-stapleton.html

Now just need to figure out what to do with Punch Bowl Social across the street..

[TakeFive]

How 'bout that

Originally Posted by BG918

Land speculation definitely has not slowed down in Stapleton. There is a 309 unit apartment project proposed for the long-vacant SE corner of CPB and MLK.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...ment-building-proposed-in-stapleton.html

Now just need to figure out what to do with Punch Bowl Social across the street..

This is what Price Development Group currently has under construction at the PDG Design District on South Broadway. This one was designed by Kephart while it says the Stapleton project will be designed by KTGY Architecture + Planning.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by BG918

Land speculation definitely has not slowed down in Stapleton. There is a 309 unit apartment project proposed for the long-vacant SE corner of CPB and MLK.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...ment-building-proposed-in-stapleton.html

Now just need to figure out what to do with Punch Bowl Social across the street..

I hope this gets done. I've lived in Stapleton for 15 years and want that hole filled!

As for the name, I initially wanted Aviation Park, but that didn't make the cut.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I hope this gets done. I've lived in Stapleton for 15 years and want that hole filled!

As for the name, I initially wanted Aviation Park, but that didn't make the cut.

That one and the big field north of Punch Bowl. Seems crazy those are still empty lots with all of the growth in the area.

I think Central Park Station has a lot of potential to be great but not really encouraged by the current development; hopefully the lots closer to the station will have more density and better designs.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by BG918

That one and the big field north of Punch Bowl. Seems crazy those are still empty lots with all of the growth in the area.

I think Central Park Station has a lot of potential to be great but not really encouraged by the current development; hopefully the lots closer to the station will have more density and better designs.

If my memory serves correct, I believe the City owns those 2-3 large blocks of land at the Station. That's likely the reason they're taking so long to develop - City probably has a very specific vision for what should go there, though I'm not sure exactly. Given how long those lots have been vacant (20 years now) that vision probably isn't aligned with reality but who knows. I saw a hotel offering for one of the lots about a year back, seemed pretty far along too but haven't heard a peep about it lately.