DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Real estate development does not strictly follow MACRS accounting principles. Just off the top of my head...

You're correct, but I still got a chuckle out of my own comment and your corresponding response. There is not a significant amount of property being turned over every 20 years in this city though, please don't state that as fact. Maybe a couple buildings here or there, but I'm even coming up blank on that. The type of turnover I'm assuming is change of use and increase in density - not renovations of restaurants and breweries or office spaces. I am unaware of any million+ mcmansion in LoHi that has been assembled and torn down for an apartment project (or any other use). You do have a point on the CC Whole Foods though, then again that's just proposed.

Originally Posted by gopokes21

In fact, you viewing Denver development through the lens of sitting on a property for 39.5 years to maximize the depreciation schedule, explains the rest of what you've said.

Haha, ok. I definitely make investment decisions based on the MACR tables! Try to see the humor in my comment...please!

Originally Posted by gopokes21

It's not very novel to say something has changed for the worst, coinciding with an expansion in government. What's changed isn't the size of government or extent of urban planning, but rather the advanced-stage commodification of real estate.

I assume you honestly believe this and that's your right, but that is not a factual statement. Government just in the past 10 years has become incredibly more regulatory, complicated, and burdensome. The same government you think hasn't changed in 100 years now makes it impossible for little developers to pursue creative projects because they don't have the mountain of expertise, time, and money it takes to get through the process. I'm not going to sit here and complain about it because it works to my advantage, but my point is that those regulations, when added up, are not creating a better built environment in my opinion (just an opinion based on real life experience, not a presumed fact).

Originally Posted by gopokes21

We've had highly-prescriptive city plans before. In fact, Denver is one of the best examples of the "City Beautiful" movement.

Great point, but those bold plans are generally no longer possible because of things like environmental impact statements, condemnation and public takings, and weak public leadership due to career politicians (a crisis which transcends Denver). It could take 10 years to get through environmental impacts alone for something of that scale. We can't even get the City to buy a block in Arapahoe Square and turn it into a park to make that an actual livable neighborhood. Cities should get back to roads, bridges, and parks, and let the market take a bit more control over what people want - again just an opinion because our current model isn't working and our current model is prescriptive development determined by a few angry homeowners and city planners who are forced to work in a bubble of traditional norms.

Originally Posted by gopokes21

I disagree that the problem with development is setbacks, road width, life safety, fire department access, etc. Call me old fashioned, but I'd say those are all good things.

First off, have you ever gone through these things and completed a project? I am genuinely curious. Second, if these types of things aren't the problem, then what is? What is holding us back from producing adequate housing? We did for about 130 years up until the 1990's...then we started failing.

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Maybe we don't need a food truck court. It's not a great use of space, aside from Friday nights when it's busy.

Maybe we don't, but maybe we do. Are you to dictate what we do and don't need? You don't think at least SOME people would be interested in it? We have plenty of room under this circus tent for everyone/everything. You cannot possibly call for diversity and claim to be a progressive and then in the same paragraph say we don't need this or that!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I am genuinely curious which you think are the acceptable DPS high schools these days (as I plan out the future...wondering my options...wanting to tee it up so they can follow in their fancy mother's footsteps; obviously not their father's). We are in East so I figure we are good to go. I am interested in the direction South is heading. I'd move to Cherry Creek schools before I move to Stapleton, but I assume they are on the list too (Northfield, is it?).

East is great and South is on the up and up. GW has an excellent IB program that's one of the state's best. North is a waste that gets by on it's historical legacy at this point. The issue with the first three is that you basically have a two tier school of wealthy (mostly white) kids and then the poorer black and brown kids that are kept mostly separated with a resulting wide-ranging achievement gap. The disparity at GW was so bad that they had to abandon their current IB model and restructure it. East also has some issues with a preppy, rape culture that toppled the school leadership just prior to Covid. I don't think it was Columbine bad, but it certainly didn't give me confidence in the administration.

The DSST schools piss excellence at this point. Any kid that put's themselves into those meat grinders will have a bright future.

I like what Central Park (Stapleton) has going for it in Northfield High School. Dispersing the IB program across all classrooms seems to have aided in boosting test scores across all demographics, and reserving a good chunk of seats for kids out of the enrollment zone means that the school is pulling in kids from Green Valley Ranch, Montbello, and North Park Hill which diversifies the student body outside of what Central Park could produce locally. In four years it will likely be the among the best performing large high school in DPS and will (hopefully) have an athletic program that rivals Cherry Creek High School. We've got enough kids and money in the neighborhood to make it happen while maintaining diversity and a sense of inclusiveness.

Really, you don't have anything to worry about. Your kiddos future is pretty much guaranteed given the two-parent, mid-six figure household they're growing up in. That you're even thinking about schools right now is a strong indicator that that Ivy/public Ivy education is a lock.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by laniroj

You're correct, but I still got a chuckle out of my own comment and your corresponding response. There is not a significant amount of property being turned over every 20 years in this city though, please don't state that as fact. Maybe a couple buildings here or there, but I'm even coming up blank on that. The type of turnover I'm assuming is change of use and increase in density - not renovations of restaurants and breweries or office spaces. I am unaware of any million+ mcmansion in LoHi that has been assembled and torn down for an apartment project (or any other use). You do have a point on the CC Whole Foods though, then again that's just proposed.


Haha, ok. I definitely make investment decisions based on the MACR tables! Try to see the humor in my comment...please!


I assume you honestly believe this and that's your right, but that is not a factual statement. Government just in the past 10 years has become incredibly more regulatory, complicated, and burdensome. The same government you think hasn't changed in 100 years now makes it impossible for little developers to pursue creative projects because they don't have the mountain of expertise, time, and money it takes to get through the process. I'm not going to sit here and complain about it because it works to my advantage, but my point is that those regulations, when added up, are not creating a better built environment in my opinion (just an opinion based on real life experience, not a presumed fact).


Great point, but those bold plans are generally no longer possible because of things like environmental impact statements, condemnation and public takings, and weak public leadership due to career politicians (a crisis which transcends Denver). It could take 10 years to get through environmental impacts alone for something of that scale. We can't even get the City to buy a block in Arapahoe Square and turn it into a park to make that an actual livable neighborhood. Cities should get back to roads, bridges, and parks, and let the market take a bit more control over what people want - again just an opinion because our current model isn't working and our current model is prescriptive development determined by a few angry homeowners and city planners who are forced to work in a bubble of traditional norms.




First off, have you ever gone through these things and completed a project? I am genuinely curious. Second, if these types of things aren't the problem, then what is? What is holding us back from producing adequate housing? We did for about 130 years up until the 1990's...then we started failing.



Maybe we don't, but maybe we do. Are you to dictate what we do and don't need? You don't think at least SOME people would be interested in it? We have plenty of room under this circus tent for everyone/everything. You cannot possibly call for diversity and claim to be a progressive and then in the same paragraph say we don't need this or that!

You're not wrong about anything, and I do (now) appreciate your joke about viewing CRE through the (cynical) lens of depreciation.

I still am leery (hence why I went a tad negative in my response) of the anti "big government" rhetoric that just writes itself... but you're also right that City Beautiful would be virtually impossible today, but hey, at least the mountain of paperwork and legal proceedings would employ thousands.

My response that life safety zoning etc is important was kind of gaslighting, admittedly. I'm well aware of the excess in rigor but it's hard to really get a handle on the extent of the problem or what the problem is, because like I said, we should have life safety zoning etc. Requiring multiple fire truck turnarounds within say 40' despite 50' hoses... it gets discretionary but I see both angles. I also see the downside to "erring on the side of safety," which we all know isn't changing.

It's true that Denver is seeing fewer, but much bigger, projects these days. More like throwing a boulder into a pond versus thousands of little pebbles. It may be true that the regulatory environment, which has been retooled to handle boulders, may be making small deals harder but that's far from the impact that land cost has dealt to small deals. This is still more of a market function than a regulatory function, with the latter always trying to keep up.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You're kidding, right? Such typical Boulder arrogance (We deserve a train...wahhh.) Boulder literally has its own entire bus network, funded and operated by RTD. Draw me a circle around another patch of 95,000 people anywhere in the metro area that has that same concentration of service. You won't find one.

I see... So if you live in the city of Denver voted for a tax increase to improve parks, but then didn't improve any parks - you would think that's OK because we already have parks. And you would just pay your increased tax without question... yeah, OK

Also, I live in downtown Denver. I'm not like most people here that live in the burbs and complain about people living in the burbs.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

I see... So if you live in the city of Denver voted for a tax increase to improve parks, but then didn't improve any parks - you would think that's OK because we already have parks. And you would just pay your increased tax without question... yeah, OK

Also, I live in downtown Denver. I'm not like most people here that live in the burbs and complain about people living in the burbs.

We did just vote more money for parks and not get any parks! But that’s a different story. Denver does that all the time - vote some money, and just shift dollars to bolster the general fund.

Boulder got the Flatiron Flyer. Just because they wanted two things because they felt entitled and couldn’t choose... I don’t suppose you were around pre-Fastracks when that planning process was going on, so you probably have no idea what actually occurred. But I don’t hear you crying for Highlands Ranch and the SW extension that might never get built. Highlands Ranch got not a penny from Fastracks. Boulder can’t say that.

I, umm, don’t live in the burbs...

[SirLucasTheGreat]

If people here actually live in Denver, can we starting sharing photos or news regarding development? Most of the discussions here are frankly not very interesting or useful.

Here's a photo of the new Community Commons at the University of Denver

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Here is the Fitzgerald:

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Here is the Fitzgerald:

It costs several hundred thousand dollars to do the nice setback windows like the bottom proportions of Fitzgerald have for a couple hundred unit multifamily deal. For the life of me, I will never understand why most developers do not voluntarily choose this specific aesthetic component to be proud of what they build. Outside of the most modern intents, this is an easy thing to do it just costs money. As a developer myself, I think it abhorrent that the majority of my peers succumb to value engineering for, IMO, the single most important design component the built environment can offer. It's not all value engineering and developers' faults as many, perhaps most, architects push for these modern brutal aesthetics, but boy do those windows look nice!

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Fascinating. I didn't know how costly embellishments like that actually were. It really adds to the street presence of this project. I think the Fitzgerald is one of my favorite projects under construction in LoDo. Between this, Market Station, the Thompson Hotel, and Whiskey Row, I'm really excited for the future of Market Street

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by laniroj

It costs several hundred thousand dollars to do the nice setback windows like the bottom proportions of Fitzgerald have for a couple hundred unit multifamily deal. For the life of me, I will never understand why most developers do not voluntarily choose this specific aesthetic component to be proud of what they build. Outside of the most modern intents, this is an easy thing to do it just costs money. As a developer myself, I think it abhorrent that the majority of my peers succumb to value engineering for, IMO, the single most important design component the built environment can offer. It's not all value engineering and developers' faults as many, perhaps most, architects push for these modern brutal aesthetics, but boy do those windows look nice!

Bingo.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We did just vote more money for parks and not get any parks! But that’s a different story. Denver does that all the time -

When did that happen? Are you talking about the Elevate Denver bonds that have until 2028 to complete their 97 park projects? You can complain when none of the projects are done (although it's odd that you seem frustrated this happens with Denver parks, but don't understand why it would frustrate Boulder residences)

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Boulder got the Flatiron Flyer. Just because they wanted two things because they felt entitled and couldn’t choose... I don’t suppose you were around pre-Fastracks when that planning process was going on, so you probably have no idea what actually occurred.

I was around - I moved here in 2004. It doesn't change the fact that they voted on a plan, raised $243 million in tax receipts, and got nothing. You seem to agree that's not right... but you don't understand it anyways.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

I was around - I moved here in 2004. It doesn't change the fact that they voted on a plan, raised $243 million in tax receipts, and got nothing. You seem to agree that's not right... but you don't understand it anyways.

Boulder got something, it’s called the Flatiron Flyer which you are familiar with. What Boulder has contributed covers about half the cost of the project excluding debt service. Longmont has been screwed, that’s true, and needs it’s choo-choo but I’m tired of Boulder whining about not getting anything when that’s absolutely false.

Boulder deserves dick for any additional transit service subsidized by the rest of the metro area.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

It doesn't change the fact that they voted on a plan, raised $243 million in tax receipts, and got nothing.

Why do you characterize the most frequent, reliable, and comfortable regional bus service in the state as nothing? It's arguably better than the W or R line. Furthermore, the central line actually got service/frequency cuts and closed several stations instead of being expanded north along Downing. Considering this is serving the historical heart of the black community in Denver, that feels like a more egregious issue than duplicative service to a Denver exurb.

[ams5280]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

I was around - I moved here in 2004. It doesn't change the fact that they voted on a plan, raised $243 million in tax receipts, and got nothing. You seem to agree that's not right... but you don't understand it anyways.

Again, Boulder has not even paid half the cost of the B Line /reduced service/ that would serve, what, 800 daily riders optimistically? We’d save money giving every daily rider daily door-to-door Uber service.

Level with me, you live in downtown Denver and want to go to Boulder. Name one place in Boulder worth visiting that you could easily get to with the train. Or less than 2 transfers.

The same goes for the Longmont to Boulder trip. The train will not take anyone where they want or need to be, and expensively at that.

As someone who commuted daily from Littleton to Boulder on the Flatiron Flyer, I can’t begin to describe how useful the bus is and how pointless the train would be.

[CherryCreek]

Rail from Cheyenne to Pueblo anyone?

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/...ects-us-map-that-suggests-new-corridors/

[twister244]

Fort Collins to Colorado Springs? Sure.

Cheyenne to Pueblo? Not so much.......

I would assume you want to build transit lines that connect popular points destination points where people go back and forth. You see that along the urban corridor, but not north of Fort Collins or South of the Springs.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

When did that happen?

2018. Ballot Measure 2A. Nothing to do with Elevate.

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

I was around - I moved here in 2004. It doesn't change the fact that they voted on a plan, raised $243 million in tax receipts, and got nothing. You seem to agree that's not right... but you don't understand it anyways.

Well, $124M of that (not counting continuing operational funds, which have also eaten into your $243M) went to the Flatiron Flyer. No actually, not nothing.

"Nothing" is what Highlands Ranch got. Not. A. Penny. And has, what, four total bus routes serving the same population? I'll remind you, Highlands Ranch has the same population as Boulder now.

As I said, you could draw lots of circles around 100,000 people across the metro area who got far, far less for their taxes.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by twister244

Fort Collins to Colorado Springs? Sure.

Cheyenne to Pueblo? Not so much.......

I would assume you want to build transit lines that connect popular points destination points where people go back and forth. You see that along the urban corridor, but not north of Fort Collins or South of the Springs.

I give zero shits about Cheyenne. But be nice to Pueblo. Unless you've spent any time there, it's actually a lovely little city. It has gone through some rough times, like any Rust Belt city, but its historic bones are second only to Denver in Colorado. When I was a kid, the Front Range was Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo.

Just because Fort Collins is richer and whiter - and thanks in large part to Boulder not becoming an actual city, has grown massively in the last 30 years - does not make it more important than connecting to the historic southern anchor of the Front Range corridor. Which still, by the way, has more people than that community of train whiners, Longmont. I guarantee you train ridership between Pueblo and Colorado Springs (all else equal - depending on exactly where it goes) could match some other Front Range point-to-points (like, say, Longmont to Denver). It needs to be connected, 100%.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by ams5280

...
Level with me, you live in downtown Denver and want to go to Boulder. Name one place in Boulder worth visiting that you could easily get to with the train. Or less than 2 transfers.

The same goes for the Longmont to Boulder trip. The train will not take anyone where they want or need to be, and expensively at that.

As someone who commuted daily from Littleton to Boulder on the Flatiron Flyer, I can’t begin to describe how useful the bus is and how pointless the train would be.

I'm going to try and end the train/transportation debate in one fail swoop AND tie it into development. Here goes...

IF Boulder can significantly increase housing capacity and drive dense development, a train should be considered, but only after all the zoning and planning mechanisms are in place. There is a pretty incredible amount of vehicle traffic between Denver-Boulder and if we can put a dent in that (IF) a train is worth it. Plus Boulder gets a bunch of tourism (but those vehicle trips largely involve full cars not single occupancy anyway).

Ultimately, it would be great to interconnect the entire front range and I70 corridor via train and it's something we should strive for. Buses are a good short term fix but in the long run, we really should be developing trains with stations that accommodate major residential density adjacent to work centers and commercial nodes. That is sustainable development, much the same as downtown and central Denver are densifying along transit corridors. What is not sustainable is expecting suburbanites to commute into a city center every day. Put jobs where housing is, eliminate single occupancy commuting via built environment and not lacking transportation hopes/wishes/dreams. To me, trains are much less about their transportation function, rather they serve as dense development investments that provide innumerable benefits over the long term. Without them, sprawl will continue.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Exactly what laniroj said regarding trains.

From a transportation standpoint in the city, I am much more interested in some of the improvements DOTI has been making in our bike lanes and through the shared streets initiative. For example, DOTI has been installing roundabouts on 11th avenue near Cheeseman. In addition, DOTI has created these cool traffic slowing features on Bayaud where the road narrows at the intersection with one lane marked as a regular vehicle lane and the other lane is a more narrow bike lane. Makes it much more comfortable for microbility. Denver won't turn into Copenhagen but I would to see us further promote micromobility, as that will likely provide alternative transportation options on a much more expedited basis with significantly less capital investment than a rail system. Hell, even the Colfax BRT is going to be a decade long project for whatever needless reason.