DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I'm really hoping to see the Evolve Towers move forward although they look more like something I'd see in Miami. I feel like we aren't going to see stuff of that scale anytime soon unless we get a read out from the vaccine trials showing super high efficacy. We had more than 80,000 new cases of COVID-19 today and I'm concerned that this winter will be both a public health and economic disaster.

[DenvertoLA]

The brick work on the evolve towers doest show up too well in those photos. I think that building will fit in nicely with the brick core and the modern twist on top.

They are going to have to market the hell out of it's sanitary upgrades.

Imagineer moving into a new apartment complex and having the pool / sauna be shut down for a year

[DenvertoLA]

https://businessden.com/2020/10/27/firm-...-changes-approach-for-adjacent-property/

If this gets rejected NIMBYs will be throwing away almost 50 affordable units.

Question tho... why is there a state law that prohibits Denver or other municipalities from requiring low income units in developments outright? It’s not stopping the city from rejecting projects on that basis.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Jmc84

I think a lot of the commentary here on WFH impacts on commercial RE downtown miss the mark. The decisions going forward will not be binary (i.e. in the office 5 days per week OR WFH 5 days per week).

My company has at least 800 employees across the Denver metro (Boulder, Denver, and Tech Center area). We've all been WFH since March and our company has been very transparent about their plans post-COVID. Across the entire company we are being allowed to determine our own schedules once we return to the office - the vast majority of employees selected to work in the office 3 days per week or less.

The solution is that anyone working in-office 4 or 5 days per week will be guaranteed a desk, while anyone in the office 3 days per week or less will sit at open, non-assigned desks. This will allow us to significantly reduce the amount of square footage we need in the office. Multiply this across dozens/hundreds of companies and it's hard to see how that won't impact the demand for commercial real estate, at least in the short to medium term.

We are having the same discussions. I give it 6 months before companies realize that full-time WFH, and the routines that engenders, will not last or be the same as 3 days in-office, 2 days WFH. That's a four day weekend. People want that so they can do their damn laundry and still go to the mountains. I predict verifiable 30% loss in productivity once we transition from all-WFH to the-worst-of-both-worlds. It won't last.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

https://businessden.com/2020/10/27/firm-...-changes-approach-for-adjacent-property/

If this gets rejected NIMBYs will be throwing away almost 50 affordable units.

What I want to know is why tf CdeBaca is putting the 'Globeville, Elyria-Swansea Coalition Organizing for Health and Housing Justice' in the drivers seat to call the shots for a proposed development that isn't even in their neighborhood? This is a new evolution from NIMBY to NIYBYE (not in your backyard either - I pronounce this Nye-Bye).


In a Denver Business Journal Article the neighborhood group says they are fighting displacement of residents nearby.....but this project literally is replacing a salad factory in a different neighborhood, where it is surrounded by industrial buildings. So no displacement. No nearby residents. Oh, and not your neighborhood. Ridic!

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

What I want to know is why tf CdeBaca is putting the 'Globeville, Elyria-Swansea Coalition Organizing for Health and Housing Justice' in the drivers seat to call the shots for a proposed development that isn't even in their neighborhood? This is a new evolution from NIMBY to NIYBYE (not in your backyard either - I pronounce this Nye-Bye).


In a Denver Business Journal Article the neighborhood group says they are fighting displacement of residents nearby.....but this project literally is replacing a salad factory in a different neighborhood, where it is surrounded by industrial buildings. So no displacement. No nearby residents. Oh, and not your neighborhood. Ridic!

Seriously.... The virtue signalling here is beyond nauseating. Anyone who knows this area knows the only thing being displaced is industrial space. Denver NIMBY'ism (or NyeByeeeeeee) is really over-the-top sometimes.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by twister244

Seriously.... The virtue signalling here is beyond nauseating. Anyone who knows this area knows the only thing being displaced is industrial space. Denver NIMBY'ism (or NyeByeeeeeee) is really over-the-top sometimes.

"Sometimes" isn't nearly strong enough an adjective to describe NIMBY/NIYBYE the past year or so. People are anti-everything now. Hell, look at the medtronic thing in Louisville. "No thanks, we don't want a thousand jobs with an average salary of $186,000 - that's bad for our community".

I'm sorry, but we need entitlement reform and we need it bad - maybe the new supreme court will take it up if a developer has deep enough pockets? Property rights have completely left the conversation unfortunately. On the plus side, yay for the Carmen Court owners on Speer (and yay for Hines). I am most excited about that development because it's bringing more senior units to the centre city - wish we saw more of that (this coming from an evil millennial).

[TakeFive]

A groundbreaking without shovels? What's with that?

Originally Posted by rds70

An update on a few development items:
On a side note, construction has finally started on the 360 Acoma apartments in the Baker Neighborhood. It is a five story building with 171 units and below grade parking. The developer is now Lennar Multifamily Co.

This project didn't ring my bell - until I googled the address. That's when I recalled the midrise next door to this site. I had obviously done the same search previously when discussed on these pages. I found the previous 'concept' rendering but I'll assume it's worthless.

This is great news, of course. Going out on a limb to suggest that Lennar received feedback as to better pricing from contractor/sub-contractors. Chances are the same people who Lennar has been working with loved the idea of more work. Plus it's always nice to work for a developer when you know the money is in the bank. I wonder if perhaps Lennar transferred some of the Golden Triangle designated money to this project?

Note:
Word on the Street is that bunt is brokering 'slightly scarred' lumber at amazing prices. Who knows, might have been the difference on this project?

Which reminds me:
Jugs of fresh apple cider have now arrived at your favorite (Kroger) store. Kroger branded cider is a $ cheaper but since I don't want my apples from the bottom of the barrel, of course I pay the extra $ for the branded variety.

Originally Posted by rds70

An update on a few development items:
Avalon Governor's Park (Racine's site) has entered the formal site plan review process:

Also good to hear. Avalon, a really BIG REIT would have their own funding. With plan approvals the only decision might be building here as apposed to somewhere else but since they're moving forward that is a good sign.

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Here are a bunch of images (from almost 4 years ago) of the Hurley Place Master Plan:

Source

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by rds70

The Downtown Design Advisory Committee will be reviewing the final design for the Evolve Towers at next weeks meeting. The project is at Park Avenue West and Champa Street.

As a refresher, the project includes two 23-story towers over a common five-story base. 314 units are proposed. The building will be 267 feet tall including the fins extending above the roofline. Approximately 7,000 square feet of retail space is also included and 282 structured parking spaces.

Here are the latest renderings:

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

The brick work on the evolve towers doest show up too well in those photos. I think that building will fit in nicely with the brick core and the modern twist on top.

They are going to have to market the hell out of it's sanitary upgrades.

Imagineer moving into a new apartment complex and having the pool / sauna be shut down for a year

This was originally supposed to be (more) affordable condos but checking out their web site they do mention "tenants." Maybe it's an open question which way they want to go.

Originally Posted by laniroj

"Sometimes" isn't nearly strong enough an adjective to describe NIMBY/NIYBYE the past year or so. People are anti-everything now. Hell, look at the medtronic thing in Louisville. "No thanks, we don't want a thousand jobs with an average salary of $186,000 - that's bad for our community".

The Louisville decision was a head-scratcher. They bent over hoping to appease the nay-sayers but the opposition grew faster than they could meet demands which became unrealistic.

The Good News that they still intend to pursue another Colorado site even though they could go elsewhere without the hassle - like in Texas.

Originally Posted by laniroj

I'm sorry, but we need entitlement reform and we need it bad - maybe the new supreme court will take it up if a developer has deep enough pockets? Property rights have completely left the conversation unfortunately. On the plus side, yay for the Carmen Court owners on Speer (and yay for Hines). I am most excited about that development because it's bringing more senior units to the centre city - wish we saw more of that (this coming from an evil millennial).

Big property rights fan here but not sure it would apply?

I caught the agreement with respect to Carmen Court. Glad to see this happen but it appears this may still take awhile.

Off the beaten path

I will be so happy, happy when this election is over. There is nothing so stupid and silly as American Politics. Still I'm fascinated by the process, the demographic breakdowns etc.

I start my day at "Axios" which is a newer site being funded by Steve Jobs wife as well as an easy-to-scroll thru start to the day. Reuters is still my favorite no-drama, credible source but these days I live at Politico because of it's excellent writing and insight.

Ofc Colorado is no-drama this year except wondering about the Gallagher Amendment? In AZ, the Trump family has been a frequent visitor but this state could very well turn blue. High probability that AZ ends up with its 2nd Dem Senator - something that hasn't happened in forever.

See you all next week.

[kemachs]

Originally Posted by laniroj

"Sometimes" isn't nearly strong enough an adjective to describe NIMBY/NIYBYE the past year or so. People are anti-everything now. Hell, look at the medtronic thing in Louisville. "No thanks, we don't want a thousand jobs with an average salary of $186,000 - that's bad for our community".

I'm sorry, but we need entitlement reform and we need it bad - maybe the new supreme court will take it up if a developer has deep enough pockets? Property rights have completely left the conversation unfortunately. On the plus side, yay for the Carmen Court owners on Speer (and yay for Hines). I am most excited about that development because it's bringing more senior units to the centre city - wish we saw more of that (this coming from an evil millennial).

Ok so we're celebrating Hines because they want to demolish a beautiful, historic part of Denver's fabric and build...another generic residential building? Now I see you live in the suburbs where most things are generic, and I suppose you'll call me a NIMBY for daring to challenge market forces, but I'm just bemoaning the fact that this town could give two shits about historic architecture. Everyone is always screaming about property rights and the almighty dollar - it's a libertarian's wet dream. If the owner of the Brown Palace wanted to demolish the building, would even that cross a 'property rights' line for you? Would you have celebrated the replacement of the Aladdin Theatre with a Walgreens, back in the 1980s?

I'm no fan of CdeBaca either and her opposition to all development is blatant pandering to the anti-gentrification crowd, but it would be nice to see more people (like myself) in the center on this issue. It's so gross to see the owners at Carmen Court take 0 pride in this lovely building they call home, willing to send it to the wrecking ball if it makes them rich(er). You can be sure if I owned one of those units, I'd be fighting like hell to find a buyer who would preserve the building. I'm generally a fan of Hines' projects in Chicago, Minneapolis, etc...but this demolition will forever change my opinion of them.

Also if the mayor/city council really cared about preserving history, they'd enact overlays/policies in historic districts to prevent demolitions, instead of relying on neighbors scrambling at the 11th hour to fight property owners. The piecemeal approach to landmarking doesn't work in the long run (look at how much the city has lost and continues to lose), and it just builds resentment within the community.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by kemachs

Ok so we're celebrating Hines because they want to demolish a beautiful, historic part of Denver's fabric and build...another generic residential building? Now I see you live in the suburbs where most things are generic, and I suppose you'll call me a NIMBY for daring to challenge market forces, but I'm just bemoaning the fact that this town could give two shits about historic architecture. Everyone is always screaming about property rights and the almighty dollar - it's a libertarian's wet dream. If the owner of the Brown Palace wanted to demolish the building, would even that cross a 'property rights' line for you? Would you have celebrated the replacement of the Aladdin Theatre with a Walgreens, back in the 1980s?

I'm no fan of CdeBaca either and her opposition to all development is blatant pandering to the anti-gentrification crowd, but it would be nice to see more people (like myself) in the center on this issue. It's so gross to see the owners at Carmen Court take 0 pride in this lovely building they call home, willing to send it to the wrecking ball if it makes them rich(er). You can be sure if I owned one of those units, I'd be fighting like hell to find a buyer who would preserve the building. I'm generally a fan of Hines' projects in Chicago, Minneapolis, etc...but this demolition will forever change my opinion of them.

Also if the mayor/city council really cared about preserving history, they'd enact overlays/policies in historic districts to prevent demolitions, instead of relying on neighbors scrambling at the 11th hour to fight property owners. The piecemeal approach to landmarking doesn't work in the long run (look at how much the city has lost and continues to lose), and it just builds resentment within the community.

Please review this map to see the extent of historic protection in central Denver:

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

Carmen Court is not in a district.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by kemachs

Also if the mayor/city council really cared about preserving history, they'd enact overlays/policies in historic districts to prevent demolitions, instead of relying on neighbors scrambling at the 11th hour to fight property owners. The piecemeal approach to landmarking doesn't work in the long run (look at how much the city has lost and continues to lose), and it just builds resentment within the community.

There's a set percentage of the community that bemoans anything that was built in this city post-1995. They moved to a single family neighborhood right outside of downtown and nothing should ever change in that neighborhood, by god. Developmental Luddites might be an appropriate term.

The neighbors of Camden Court who were so vested in preserving the building certainly can be considered Developmental Luddites. Of course their passion promptly dried up when they couldn't bend the council to their will. If they were truly passionate they would have started looking at how much funding they could raise to counter Hines' offer. But that would entail a greater risk than merely getting dirty looks while walking your lab.

It's similar to the people bemoaning the El Oasis Garden land sale. Making a webpage is one thing- raising $100K-200K with the specter of more would probably cause DUG to pause the sale to see if things how things would shake out.

[kemachs]

Originally Posted by rds70

Please review this map to see the extent of historic protection in central Denver:

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

Carmen Court is not in a district.

Thanks for posting - it's good to know these exist, but IMO there aren't nearly enough. How does the city decide which neighborhoods are worthy? Does everyone here think all historic buildings outside of these patchy zones should be scraped? Has Dana Crawford's legacy of preservationists just given up on this city?

[The Dirt]

The whiter and richer you are the more likely your neighborhood will be dipped in amber and preserved as a museum piece that only the most privileged can afford and enjoy. Housing everyone else be dammed as long as we can keep sprawling into the prairie indefinitely.

For the record, the current owner and occupants could no longer afford the ongoing maintenance of Carmen Court. If you love it so much, please start a fund to buy it and maintain it into perpetuity. Otherwise, keep your selfishness and greed as far away from Denver as possible.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I feel like we aren't going to see stuff of that scale anytime soon unless we get a read out from the vaccine trials showing super high efficacy. We had more than 80,000 new cases of COVID-19 today and I'm concerned that this winter will be both a public health and economic disaster.

My understanding is that for so-called "Emergency" approval for these vaccines being tested is a threshold of at least 50% efficacy.

I am happy to give the President kudos for the one thing he got right: Operation Warp Speed. It's also why I'd continue to support the private sector piece in healthcare - which doesn't preclude creating a 'public' option.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

The whiter and richer you are the more likely your neighborhood will be dipped in amber and preserved as a museum piece that only the most privileged can afford and enjoy. Housing everyone else be dammed as long as we can keep sprawling into the prairie indefinitely.

It's a conundrum

The 'world' has so changed that certainly there's more questions than answers. (Excellent read)

My best guess (from my centrist position) is the best 'antidote' is somewhere between the two political-philosophical extremes.

[mr1138]

There is one big difference between the homes and structures people cry" historic preservation" about today and the historic preservation legacy of people like Dana Crawford - Floor Area Ratio. I get as upset as anybody when I see a beautiful old and very URBAN building slated for demolition, some of this is even still happening today in places like Arapahoe Square. But we shouldn't pretend that every small bungalow and 2-4 story apartment building is the same as the brick warehouses in LoDo.

The demolition of the DURA era tended to target urban buildings, in my opinion, in part because they were seen as too large and urban for the suburban era. Now it seems people get upset about the potential demolition of something like Tom's Diner or a small bungalow because they are afraid it will be replaced by something that is large and urban.

[mhays]

Great points. I'd add that replacing near-CBD buildings with parking was considered desirable (and profitable), at least as an interim use. That was an extension of the "be more like the suburbs" concept.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by kemachs

Ok so we're celebrating Hines because they want to demolish a beautiful, historic part of Denver's fabric and build...another generic residential building? Now I see you live in the suburbs where most things are generic, and I suppose you'll call me a NIMBY for daring to challenge market forces, but I'm just bemoaning the fact that this town could give two shits about historic architecture. Everyone is always screaming about property rights and the almighty dollar - it's a libertarian's wet dream. If the owner of the Brown Palace wanted to demolish the building, would even that cross a 'property rights' line for you? Would you have celebrated the replacement of the Aladdin Theatre with a Walgreens, back in the 1980s?

I'll first start by saying that suburban/urban has nothing to do with an appreciation for historic buildings. I work for a company that has probably saved more dirty old historic buildings than any other company (at least locally) - so let's correct your condescending assumptions with that fact. I would consider myself well versed in historic preservation, both federal and at the state level (in numerous states) and have preserved many buildings, small and large, during my time. Simply put, there are things worth saving and there are things which should make way for progress. Carmen Court is one of the losers. Denver still has many structures worth saving, but folks confuse old buildings with historic preservation. Preservation is meant to maintain a significant piece of history, not a little 6-plex a rich Gates engineer built way back in the day to make a buck. The building had no notable architect, served no contextual purpose, and isn't prominent. Is it a cool aesthetic? Yes, but that's not what makes buildings historic. I really wish people would stop confusing old buildings with historic buildings and no, the Brown Palace is not comparable to Carmen Court.

I would encourage you to read the criterion for historic preservation on the national park service website. If, after, you familiarize yourself with the program and still feel Carmen Court is worth saving, well then so be it. If you put in the time to understand the process, you will understand this result. By the way, it takes a lot of time!

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by kemachs

Thanks for posting - it's good to know these exist, but IMO there aren't nearly enough. How does the city decide which neighborhoods are worthy? Does everyone here think all historic buildings outside of these patchy zones should be scraped? Has Dana Crawford's legacy of preservationists just given up on this city?

The City determines these districts through an incredibly detailed process of landmark inventory (some of which are submitted by folks like yourself and neighbors) and others which are documented by a fairly large group of really smart and passionate people. There is a lot of effort put into historic preservation in our City - you may not believe that, but it's true. Could we do better? Yes. For example, many states/cities have incentive programs to maintain historic structures - sometimes state tax credits (like Colorado has) but also at the local level many places administer tax abatement. It's a very successful tool in preserving historic structures. I would encourage you to advocate with your local Councilperson to enact tax abatement for historic preservation - if neighbors really cared about historic preservation, y'all would gang up on council to pursue tax abatement...

[Curtis Park]

The owner of the Mercury Cafe is freaking out about a new apartment being built next door. One issue is the concentration of homeless services, which I agree is not a good idea. But her other complaint is the affect the building will have on her solar panels and her (usually still) wind turbines. Now she wants to halt the construction.

She's been there for what, 30 years? I know I saw Henry Rollins there in the early 90s. She's had how long to address the zoning on the property next to her, or better yet buy it when it was cheap.

Her website talks about her getting "squeezed out". Forget the fact that she did not choose the option to purchase "perpetual sunlight" when she bought the building.
http://mercurycafe.com/homeless-housing-issues/