DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You keep saying this, but I am not sure what reality you are living in. I have seen an awful lot of City projects get cancelled this year because there isn't enough money.

Not exactly true. New bond issuances have been delayed due to instability in the bond market. Pricing makes a huge difference so they're actually very smart to delay things and try to hit the most favorable bond market timing.

Don't look now but the city "budget" (which itself is surprisingly difficult to define) has actually swollen due to pass-through FEMA/Covid resources, and despite the $250 million shortfall against traditional revenue sources.

That last point was a bit of a red herring but the overall point is that money isn't a problem in the big picture, and that it's difficult to define due to all of the various revenue streams, bond issuances, PPPs, let alone what is and isn't included in the city budget.

You've mentioned value capture a couple times. While that would help defray some of the hit to the City longer term (maybe you could reduce the long term tax to cover O&M somewhat), there's really no good way to capture that upfront to cover initial capital costs of the project. Certainly not at this quantum. Some folks get paid a lot of money to go around the country bursting the dreams of people who think value capture will solve their problems. It's tricky, and even in the best case requires substantial credit support. (Best recent example is probably Chicago and their use of TIF.) Moynihan Station in New York didn't even pencil on value capture alone - and that was with 1,000,000 square feet of facebook office space sitting on top - it still needed state support.

When you say confront Denver's biggest problems head-on... who has the political capital to take something like that to the voters? Nobody I know of in City politics today.

You're right. There is nobody with enough political capital right now.

We seem to generally agree that 1) it's preferable to deal with new mass transit investment here in 5-10 years as opposed to NOW, 2) Denver will be better positioned at that time for grade separated mass transit that actually gets people out of their cars; and 3) this will require at least a half-dozen funding sources and regional participation is probably out of the question unless there's something in it for Arapahoe/Adams/Jeffco/Boulder.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Let me Google that


Cities by population in 2020

• Austin - passed the One Million mark in 2020
• Dallas - 1,350,000
• Denver - 750,000

City Infrastructure funding programs

Rail transit ridership - According to the 2019 Fourth Quarter Report from APTA

Light Rail Average Weekday Ridership

• Austin - None
• Dallas - 92,000
• Denver - 95,300

Commuter Rail Average Weekday Ridership

• Austin - 2,200
• Dallas - 7,200
• Denver - 40,000

Combined Light and Commuter Rail Average Weekday Ridership

• Austin - 2,200
• Dallas - 99,200
• Denver - 135,300

NOTE: Denver has 33% more rail ridership than Austin and Dallas combined. Also note that Dallas has 80% more population than Denver; Austin has 33% more population than Denver.

Since transit systems serve the metro areas, the MSA populations are:

• Austin/Round Rock - 2,250,000
• Dallas/Ft Worth - 7,750,000
• Denver - 3,000,000

You're missing the point. Dallas and Austin are not successful urban planning models and my point was we can at least spend as much money as those cities. They are the bleak future that awaits us if Denver does not take a more active role in its own transformation.

When I have heartburn over how little Denver has to show for $7 billion in FasTracks, which should have resulted in less cars not more cars, at least we haven't flushed as much money down the drain as DART.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

So blocks of 1950's era fugly replaced by 2010's fugly?

I have never understood people's sentimental feelings toward's Sloan's Lake.... outside of the park it has all the character of Montbello asides from some bigger trees. Though Sloan's is certainly is a testament to how a good-intention building form change can have horrible unintended consequences.

Yeah, I agree with this. Living in Jefferson Park (for now) myself, I can see how bad the slot homes can be. But.... I have seen a few developments that don't look half bad.

For example, just on my block alone, you have these townhomes built a few years ago which aren't half bad:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7524,-10...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Then you go to the other end of the block and see these atrocities:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7524142,...dTknruJFpJ-CL6-kpLSHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I would say it's about 60-75% crap, with a few developments that don't look half bad.

What worries me though is I see less construction now than I did a year or two ago. When I look at Redfin in my zip code, there's NOTHING for sale at an affordable price range. It's pretty sad.....

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by rds70

A building permit has been submitted for the dual brand hotel at 1320 Glenarm:

Well hot damn. I was just thinking about this project a couple of days ago and wondering what the status was. It will be nice for a large chunk of the blank wall of Hyatt Place/House to be obscured.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So I did a Jefferson Park / Sloan's Lake walkabout this weekend with the family. Holy toledo there is some awful, awful stuff in there. And not a few - entire blocks replaced wholesale with slot homes selling for a million bucks each. It's almost enough to make a person understand why Denver Fugly exists!

It's ugly, but it wouldn't be so bad if zoning and parking mins didn't dictate that only $800k+ family-sized homes could be built there. Some walk up apartments and podium-and-stick frame buildings mixed in would have allowed for different income levels, household types and life stages. And it would have meant some architectural diversity as well.

[The Dirt]

You guys should go back to talking about how terrible Tennyson is now that people actually live and shop there.

[The Dirt]

It's funny how the city effectively banned slot homes, but didn't address the elephant in the room, which is wtf are you supposed to do with a giant lot with no alley access, ridiculous parking requirements, shit zoning restrictions, and weird setbacks on a lot assessed at $600K for the land alone other than plopping down a $1.5M McMansion.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

That's all fine and good but a better comparison would be ridership PER MILE OF TRACK. If you have 20 lines spanning 1,000 miles that generate twice as much as 2 lines spanning 100 miles, it's not really a relevant comparison (at least for funding and financial viability discussions).

Call me lazy; APTA goes to great lengths to detail 'ridership numbers' in every transit agency (of any note) so it's readily accessible. Obviously APTA thinks ridership is important in general.

Obviously, a line through high density areas will have better ridership per mile. One problem: Denver doesn't have any of those.

Portland has been a poster child for light rail and 'mobility' in the past and they do have better light rail ridership per mile than Denver. It's also worth noting that Portland's light rail probably averages 15 years longer in existence (just a guess). I'll be excited to see RTD's rail ridership numbers come 15 years from now.

Speaking of Portland the most transit-friendly city floated Measure 26-218, a $5.2 billion transportation package last November. The biggest beneficiary would have been the SW Corridor which would receive a substantial makeover in preparation for either light rail or more likely BRT.

Measure 26-218 was defeated by a margin of 57% to 43%. That's a beatdown and embarrassment for such a 'mobility' friendly place after spending many years, time, effort and money towards it passing.

Soon as you assume people couldn't care less about paying more taxes for 'good mobility' is when you're likely to be badly embarrassed - like Portland.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

It's ugly, but it wouldn't be so bad if zoning and parking mins didn't dictate that only $800k+ family-sized homes could be built there. Some walk up apartments and podium-and-stick frame buildings mixed in would have allowed for different income levels, household types and life stages. And it would have meant some architectural diversity as well.

Zoning doesn't dictate the price of the home, the market does. Right now, there isn't enough housing going up to accommodate growth. The fact these narrow slot homes are indeed selling like hot cakes means people are ok with more density city-wide, which is what exactly the city needs to accommodate ASAP if it wishes to not become another Boulder/San Francisco.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

You're missing the point. Dallas and Austin are not successful urban planning models and my point was we can at least spend as much money as those cities. They are the bleak future that awaits us if Denver does not take a more active role in its own transformation.

I just (in the same post) prove that Denver is spending just as much money and more on a per capita basis as Dallas and Austin and you pretend it isn't true.

I'm quite familiar with Urbanism dogma in general; I'm also familiar with Urban textbook view on transit. I'm not against either per se and your elitist viewpoint doesn't bother me - but neither am I tethered to them. Urbanism tends to be very expensive unless you're in a decaying city.

FWIW, places like Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas (and perhaps Boise where Idaho is the new darling for migration) have much more affordable living options. It's also worth noting that many, many "Ordinary Joe's and Juanita's" couldn't care less for you urban elitism; they are only interested in paying next months rent and feeding their children.

Dallas, for example has been hugely successful in attracting Fortune 500 companies to locate their headquarters there while simultaneously providing many affordable areas to live and work. It's the Sprawl Model and it works for those cities because they have lots of cheap dirt.

Did you happen to mention Richard Florida recently? Isn't he the one who 'proved' that people who live in the suburbs or even rural areas are much happier than people who live in city centers? I believe it was him.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Not exactly true. New bond issuances have been delayed due to instability in the bond market. Pricing makes a huge difference so they're actually very smart to delay things and try to hit the most favorable bond market timing.

I can't speak for bunt but I've got a good guess.

By May of last year the financial market had lost their jitters and interest rates trended lower thereafter - although I don't follow the muni-bond markets.

My guess is that it wasn't an issue with floating bonds; instead there was concern for the COVID lowered revenues used to pay off those bonds. Likely he was referring (partly) to the National Western Center; that project (as well as others) rely on tax revenue from tourists. Fewer tourists means fewer $'s to pay those bonds off.

Originally Posted by gopokes21

When I have heartburn over how little Denver has to show for $7 billion in FasTracks, which should have resulted in less cars not more cars, at least we haven't flushed as much money down the drain as DART.

Did I ever suggest you have tunnel vision? The trees and forest comes to mind.

Originally Posted by laniroj

That's all fine and good but a better comparison would be ridership PER MILE OF TRACK. If you have 20 lines spanning 1,000 miles that generate twice as much as 2 lines spanning 100 miles, it's not really a relevant comparison (at least for funding and financial viability discussions).

I try my best in plain language the explain difference between 'public sector' and 'private sector' investments and how all that projected TOD will bring Schnitt-loads of revenue into Denver's coffers. You act as though it's inconsequential.

Working with what we've got as apposed to constantly complaining what we don't have consider that:

• The longest rail line is also one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure for downtown Denver.
• The fact that Mineral Stations parking lot still fills up with transit riders from Highlands Ranch does indeed take many cars off the road. It's doing exactly what was intended.
• The fact that Nine Mile Station is still one of the busiest (suburban) stations is substantially due to the 9 bus routes that feed light rail riders from the whole area east of Parker Rd from roughly Hamden Ave down to Smokey Hill Rd - which is exactly what was intended. It indeed removes many, many cars from commuting all the way into downtown. That is a good thing.

I could go on but is anybody really interested? Let's move on from transit talk.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

There's activity on the 40th/Walnut Crescent site in Rino. Looks like a fence is about to go up and a parking lot is getting torn up.

https://www.crescentcommunities.com/multifamily/novel-rino/

You're the man.

I very much appreciate the provided link so I can easily know what the hell we're talking about.

Originally Posted by rds70

A building permit has been submitted for the dual brand hotel at 1320 Glenarm:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Well hot damn. I was just thinking about this project a couple of days ago and wondering what the status was. It will be nice for a large chunk of the blank wall of Hyatt Place/House to be obscured.

Get out...

They have also crossed my mind a couple of times since I grew up in the Hawkeye State. I wondered if they had even been able to survive? But I was also aware that hotels like what they own seemed to have fared better during COVID times.

Considering they are good at appealing to bargain travelers and that this project is at least two years out from completion when they could also take advantage of the revived convention business it's smart tine to proceed.

[TakeFive]

Don't hold your breath but do get excited

Originally Posted by BG918

Saw that, looks like Milender White has mobilized. Now we just need World Trade Center to get restarted across the street.

With all the empty office space including a boatload of sub-lease space which is still growing I wouldn't look for the WTC anytime soon.

But I'd anticipate an update coming soon for this Golub/Formativ project:


Image courtesy of Tryba/Golub/Formativ via Bisnow

As a reminder this was from February 25th, 2020. - https://www.bisnow.com/denver/news/comme...no-one-step-closer-to-development-103125

A partnership has taken another step toward developing an empty, 13-acre lot in RiNo’s Denargo Market.

Developers Golub & Co. and Formativ held a public meeting Tuesday to rezone the acreage into C-MX, which will allow office, retail, hospitality and residential. The partnership purchased the site in 2019 for $86M alongside its institutional capital partner. Golub & Co. is headquartered in Chicago, but has an office in Denver. Formativ is based in Denver.

Given the mixed-use profile I'd be surprised if they didn't start doing infrastructure work as soon they get zoning approval of their master plan.

Golub & Co. and Formativ plan to develop the acreage into a bustling, vibrant commercial, mixed-use area. Tryba Architects Managing Principal Bill Moon said that the area will also have connected green spaces, easy and inviting access to the river and high quality architecture.

In short, key elements to great placemaking.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I was driving around the Denargo Market area the other day. That place has a lot of density coming it's way but really needs retail and maybe some activation of the Platte River to be desirable. Seems like it could be similar to the Union Station North enclave.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

You guys should go back to talking about how terrible Tennyson is now that people actually live and shop there.

Tennyson is actually a travesty because it was a walkable area full of character and mixed income/mixed use blocks.

Unlike sloans which was always lacking in character or architectural diversity, there actually was something to mourn with the changes to Tennyson.

Maybe people 'actually live and shop there' but its far less pedestrian friendly, far less diverse, and generally not a very nice place to spend time anymore.

Did I take your bait adequately?

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Tennyson is actually a travesty because it was a walkable area full of character and mixed income/mixed use blocks.

Unlike sloans which was always lacking in character or architectural diversity, there actually was something to mourn with the changes to Tennyson.

Maybe people 'actually live and shop there' but its far less pedestrian friendly, far less diverse, and generally not a very nice place to spend time anymore.

Did I take your bait adequately?

I still really like the stretch between 39th and 43rd. The stuff north of 44th though...just horrible.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by BG918

I still really like the stretch between 39th and 43rd. The stuff north of 44th though...just horrible.

It's not looking too bad. The Berkeley Inn is still there; never a regular but it was a nice local dive. Tres Chiles is new; looks interesting. Many new places and it appears as though there's been some COVID attrition but the street looks nice.

I see what you mean north of 44th.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I just (in the same post) prove that Denver is spending just as much money and more on a per capita basis as Dallas and Austin and you pretend it isn't true.

I'm quite familiar with Urbanism dogma in general; I'm also familiar with Urban textbook view on transit. I'm not against either per se and your elitist viewpoint doesn't bother me - but neither am I tethered to them. Urbanism tends to be very expensive unless you're in a decaying city.

Apologies, I actually didn't realize that was your point due to the full extent of your post. My point was more about the comparability of the roughly $6 billion DART expansion and roughly $7 billion RTD expansion, and if you're stressing rough per capita figures you neglected to account for duplicate city/county debt capacity and various other tax initiatives. Texas, not unlike TABOR, actually caps municipal taxes which forces North Texas cities to seriously weigh whether they want to opt-in for DART. This means that Dallas is in no position to pursue its own transit network, which Denver is perfectly teed-up to do (especially following the muni DOT passage and rumblings that Boulder may leave RTD).

I only mentioned how even more conservative cities take on more debt than Denver because you made a point about how much the Elevate Denver bond contributed toward transit. You also excluded OKC who has only 655,000 people, separate county, and $978 million out for a decennial GO bond. That's also a city that's transformed itself from a depressed cowtown sh!+hole into a very dynamic and revitalized urban environment. This is what is possible when you take a more planned role in shaping development and revitalization. Now I guess they're due to get complacent and start infighting over progress like Denver has.

Dallas, for example has been hugely successful in attracting Fortune 500 companies to locate their headquarters there while simultaneously providing many affordable areas to live and work. It's the Sprawl Model and it works for those cities because they have lots of cheap dirt.

Did you happen to mention Richard Florida recently? Isn't he the one who 'proved' that people who live in the suburbs or even rural areas are much happier than people who live in city centers? I believe it was him.

I could care less about him personally, but it helped you (and others) instantly recognize the economic and creative activity that only urban cities can generate. I definitely admit that the mountain and college towns (which are more elite than east Denver lol) also generate some of the same stuff, but in a different way and at a different scale. Regardless of community vs community, which politics here is great at, the state should be responsible to strategically invest infrastructure resources behind local leverage (rather than avoiding it).

I have been in a state of shock for about 3 years at how the state has pulled various funding away from Denver as they've developed more of their own funding mechanisms. The reason Denver has developed so many local revenue streams is because its problems can't be solved with the level of resources previously available, not so that the state can shift its resources elsewhere. It's kind of hard to call someone elite who is just asking for their fair share at each level.

[TakeFive]

Avs win; Avs win

Originally Posted by gopokes21

you neglected to account for duplicate city/county debt capacity and various other tax initiatives.

Afaik there is no duplicate capacity. Perhaps bunt or wong could clarify this.

Originally Posted by gopokes21

I have been in a state of shock for about 3 years at how the state has pulled various funding away from Denver as they've developed more of their own funding mechanisms. The reason Denver has developed so many local revenue streams is because its problems can't be solved with the level of resources previously available, not so that the state can shift its resources elsewhere.

I sometimes wonder if you're not a Republican; it seems as though you just make stuff up. In any case you are all over the map.

I am aware that different states are organized differently with respect to revenues and spending responsibilities. I know nothing about Texas; but in Arizona, the state collects 5.6% sales tax while in Colorado the state only collects 2.9% sales tax. (EDIT: I now see where Texas collects a state sales tax of 6.25% and I suspect that colors your thinking). That's a huge difference in revenue to each state. However, the advantage to counties and municipalities in Colorado is they don't have to beg the state for their fair share. They are allowed to collect their own sales tax (above the 2.9%) which flows directly through to them. That's a Big Bundle of money.

Colorado CDOT has been perennially underfunded. In any case they are required to spend at least 15% of their budget on "mobility"; CDOT has done a wonderful job of funding various mobility projects around the state and have taken responsibility for running regional bus routes which have exceeded expectations.

Many years ago the state legislature passed enabling legislation for the creation of RTD which also empowered the metro area to decide what they wanted and to tax themselves for that purpose. That way, the state needn't be responsible for local transit funding.

Because you have mentioned the State helping with transit infrastructure a few time is why I point out the above. I don't know if somebody put a bug in your ear but neither the State nor CDOT has any 'extra' money to assist with transit funding. If/when the State can find extra money it will go for Education.

What CDOT "might" do is to assist along those corridors where CDOT bears the responsivity for state and federal designated roads. For example they recently scheduled (safety) improvements along Federal Blvd and will also add some desired sidewalks which the city was lobbying for.

[gopokes21]

TakeFive - It's not just CDOT funding. It's school funding, main street funding, economic development funding, parks funding, housing funding, as well as CDOT and every other statewide funder. Maybe the issue is that the state doesn't really offer up much besides federal pass-through funding, maybe it's more complicated than I would imagine.

In exchange for all of that, Denver has Union Station and sports stadiums.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Avs win; Avs win

Afaik there is no duplicate capacity. Perhaps bunt or wong could clarify this.

Denver collects taxes that would normally be collected separately by a city and a county, so it is true that Denver has more categories of tax flowing its way than, say, Littleton. It helps with formula funding too, for example, motor fuel taxes, where Denver gets a city and county share. Denver also has more obligations. Denver is doing the things that Arapahoe County does; Littleton is not.

Not sure where the discussion on state support comes from. The state has never supported stuff like we are talking about in any meaningful way, and never will. I will remind everybody, we just voted a statewide income tax decrease.

You keep talking about a billion here, a billion there, Dallas, OKC... a billion buys you zero subway. Where is the example where a jurisdiction closer to the size of Denver has ponied up multiple billions? Closest I can think of is Honolulu, and that has gone super well...