DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I tend to agree with bunt_q on almost everything you just said. However, I think a large part of the problem in Denver is not necessarily a lack of infrastructure but transit's lack of a cost benefit advantage as compared to cars. We have 113 miles of rail, which is frankly a ton. However, we also have some of the most expensive fares. I think there are a lot of people in Highlands Ranch, Centennial, and Aurora that could easily pull off the light rail but it is not cheap enough to really be enticing when driving is so easy.

In Calgary, which I think is a reasonable comparison, the downtown core is very heavily infilled with office buildings and parking is prohibitively expensive. I don't think the economics favor transit use for many in the Denver metro area but maybe that might start to change as parking in the CBD and Arapahoe Square is infilled. I would end parking minimums and lower RTD fares substantially.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I tend to agree with bunt_q on almost everything you just said. However, I think a large part of the problem in Denver is not necessarily a lack of infrastructure but transit's lack of a cost benefit advantage as compared to cars. We have 113 miles of rail, which is frankly a ton. However, we also have some of the most expensive fares. I think there are a lot of people in Highlands Ranch, Centennial, and Aurora that could easily pull off the light rail but it is not cheap enough to really be enticing when driving is so easy.

In Calgary, which I think is a reasonable comparison, the downtown core is very heavily infilled with office buildings and parking is prohibitively expensive. I don't think the economics favor transit use for many in the Denver metro area but maybe that might start to change as parking in the CBD and Arapahoe Square is infilled. I would add congestion pricing downtown and lower RTD fares substantially.

I don't disagree with this necessarily, although in a post-commute work-from-home world, a 50-minute train ride from the burbs to downtown for recreation is going to struggle, even with $20 downtown parking. Traffic peaks are more spread out now, too, and driving seems faster than it was before COVID.

[TakeFive]

Jolly well, Chap

Originally Posted by laniroj

Photo credit - Denver Infill
This brings back the feels! Too bad Brookfield is such a conservative investor. I doubt they'll ever do any new development in Denver...

I hope you will be pleased that I'm delighted to be corrected as I prefer to be correct as apposed to not. No doubt you'll be equally pleased by a couple of clarifications.

"Credits" properly go to the creator which in this case was Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. But typically the owner/developer deserves equal credit as they paid for and own the design which was Brookfield Properties in this case.

Given the context of my post where this was not the primary topic I was hoping to find a modest-sized image. As you might have guessed, many sources carried the news as well as the image. My challenge was to find the ideal size which I indeed accomplished by searching google for images. But in this case it wasn't retrieved from DenverInfill. They did however carry the news which I did link to.

If by chance you noticed my British accent it's all to the credit of my enjoyment in watching Downton Abby on Netflix.

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

It was pretty crazy driving by Brighton blvd and seeing both 2900 and 3100 bulldozed. I love seeing more housing but part of me is skeptical that Brighton blvd is ever going to become a super interesting neighborhood. I mean it doesn't seem like there is much retail outside of the Source and Source Hotel. It also just feels sprawling with a bunch of land barge apartment buildings. I think LoDo and Golden Triangle are much more interesting neighborhoods to walk around in.

It is merely Destiny... or at least her children.

You won't find much in the way affordable housing in either the Golden Triangle or LoDo. Architecturally pleasing buildings don't help pay the rent for those who need to pay less.

Brighton Blvd still has a long way to go and there will be additional mixed used areas to enliven the area.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

We have the City's all powerful DOTI to thank for this treatment. "Cars rule" is a bumper sticker they have at their front desk (kidding). If the people want nice Cities, they're going to have to eliminate transportation departments because they're probably the most narrow-minded, least creative, biggest obstacle to livable places in Denver and virtually every other municipality. These departments are using iterations of the original highway transportation standards to continue guiding urban development. To say it's disingenuous would be a massive understatement, it's basically criminal neglect.

This is so typical of 'urbanists' to blame 'transportation.' The reason is you want an easy ride to your dreams; you want things done by fiat. Representative government is so messy and inconvenient. Rarely, if ever do Urbanists suggest taking their issues directly to the people. It's much more tempting to use the back door. In this respect you're no different from Trump who ached to do things by fiat.

Arterial road
is a high capacity urban road. Brighton Blvd has been a designated arterial road since before Hector was a pup.

It is possible to consider both the preferences of the majority as well as the minority in forging solutions.

To wit:

Originally Posted by mr1138

But I have to give credit where it is due - I think Brighton Boulevard turned out pretty well. It is awesome to see permanently-constructed protected bike lanes, rain garden planters, and hundreds of new trees (they are still small saplings, but they are there)...

I can't think of a nicer arterial road in Denver that Brighton Blvd; can you?

But I'm delighted to agree with The Dirt

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

speaking of demolition -- Rockfeller/Golub has submitted a demolition application for the Greyhound station downtown on September 29! Can't wait to see that old eye sore destroyed.

Speaking of Rockefeller, I recently read where they are also interested in further investments in Denver for their own account. But I suspect Denver means the greater metro area.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

When I go on my runs I usually run from Pennsylvania to Colorado Blvd and back, taking different streets to get there and back each time. Anyway, I’ve noticed all through Cap Hill, Cheesman Park, and Congress Park, there are pro-301 signs everywhere. They say very little but what little they do say could be compelling to many people: “Green vs Concrete.”

I haven’t noticed any visible trace of support for 302.

I have a bad feeling about this.

That's interesting in that 301 is all NIMBY driven. Sorry to hear this.

Originally Posted by mhays

Vancouver has never had freeways within city limits aside from one tiny edge. That's been a huge impetus to both transit use, transit investment, and of course downtown housing.

Exactly!

Additionally, Vancouver imported boatloads of Asian capital back in the 2000's which provided lots of local revenue for such investments along with the support of Federal $'s.

[mhays]

Vancouver has had large waves of highrise housing since the 60s at least. The Hong Kong outflow and other offshore money has only supercharged an existing trend.

[TakeFive]

Covid and Commuting and Changing Times

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2021/10/01/commuting-covid-return-to-work.html

In the pre-pandemic era, commuting time occupied an interesting gray area in the employee-employer dynamic. For employees, commutes were often viewed as a necessary cost of employment, albeit an annoying and frustrating one.

Commutes occupied a strange no-man’s land. When Covid-19 hit last spring, that changed overnight.

What changed?

Time employees previously spent commuting became time spent playing with their kids, pursuing a hobby and a variety of other things... I didn’t have a terrible commute before Covid-19, but even I was amazed at all the extra time available once you subtract time in the car, the time you spend getting ready and everything else that goes along with in-person work.

Which means what?

Many employees are already hesitant about returning to the office, so I doubt they'll be keen on giving that time back to their employers — even if it's only a few days a week. It's yet another potential disconnect between employers and workers on the return to the office.

Many employees also assert they're more productive working from home w/o the hassle and time needed to commute.

So what does this suggest about the future, about transit and commuting?

Originally Posted by mhays

Vancouver has had large waves of highrise housing since the 60s at least. The Hong Kong outflow and other offshore money has only supercharged an existing trend.

No disagreement here.

[TakeFive]

I'm a Business-friendly kind of guy

Originally Posted by mr1138

I have to agree with you on all of this. The lane-width thing is something that I think most people don't ever stop for two seconds to really think about -

IMO all the chatter over lane width is way overblown. In some instances I'm happy to agree... like the Santa Fe Drive Streetscape.

But rarely (if ever) do you talk about logistics, efficient movement of freight and delivery access - the necessary things that grease the downtown economy.

Most American cities prefer an efficient traffic plan. America is after all the most economically advanced and efficient country in the World.

BTW, Scottsdale is a Gold Level winner for being bike-friendly and does use traffic calming methods where appropriate so you can accommodate different needs in different places.

Just for the record given all the needs which require significant sums of money, the City of Denver has listed their priorities.

https://denvergazette.com/news/governmen...69072ec-bf32-11eb-8c09-43fa8582c874.html

The council’s six core budget priorities – determined through council member suggestions during policy committee meetings – revolve around preventing gentrification, addressing homelessness, improving public safety and tackling climate change.

Listed thusly:

1. Mitigate and reduce involuntary displacement of community members and businesses.
2. Increase affordable housing options and support for those experiencing homelessness throughout the city.
3. Reframe safety in a public health, evidence-based and anti-racist approach with community investment to ensure healthy neighborhoods.
4. Prioritize and support the recovery, resilience and innovation of Denver’s workforce, local businesses and community organizations.
5. Protect the natural environment though policy and investment in communities to combat climate change.
6. Increase complete multi-model transportation connections throughout the city

Methinks Denver needs to double their taxes to even accomplish their top priorities.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

The largest issue that Denver faces, in my opinion, is a lack of housing. In that regard, I welcome any and all residential development along Brighton boulevard and in the greater RiNo area. However, to the extent that I am disappointed that RiNo has become the clear center of developmental gravity in Denver for this upcoming cycle, it is simply just because I do not think that the finished product will be nearly as exciting and vibrant as something like Union station. Union station is arguably one of the most successful and transformative mixed-use, transit oriented developments in the country so far this century

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So, it's not really fair to say "we could do this in Colorado if we really wanted to."

Totally agree on the cost disease issue in the US. I was speaking more broadly about what is theoretically possible with the infrastructure we already have (which is a lot for a sunblet-ish mid sized American metro). Actual feasibility and political realities are another matter. Still, it's interesting to look north of the border at what could have been, or what could be some day if significant reforms take place.

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

The largest issue that Denver faces, in my opinion, is a lack of housing. In that regard, I welcome any and all residential development along Brighton boulevard and in the greater RiNo area. However, to the extent that I am disappointed that RiNo has become the clear center of developmental gravity in Denver for this upcoming cycle, it is simply just because I do not think that the finished product will be nearly as exciting and vibrant as something like Union station. Union station is arguably one of the most successful and transformative mixed-use, transit oriented developments in the country so far this century

I have to wonder how much Opportunity Zones have shifted the focus so firmly on Rino over the CBD/Lodo area.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

I have to wonder how much Opportunity Zones have shifted the focus so firmly on Rino over the CBD/Lodo area.

Not at all. Folks haven't really cracked the opportunity zone code. RiNo is all about that area being the next sexiness, plus sizable parcels under single ownership (no assemblage needed) with decent zoning. Development *at scale* up there is, relatively speaking - and especially relative to just about anywhere else in Denver-proper - just EASY.

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I would love a subway but I just have next to zero confidence that it is financially feasible. Even if you remove the 1/3 of Denver's land that is the airport, we are still less dense than NYC, SF, Boston, DC, Miami, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, LA, Minneapolis, Oakland, and Baltimore.

I was just in Boston and loved how effective their subway was but unfortunately, they have triple our density and a street system that is significantly less attractive for driving than Denver's. Can you identify any comparable city to Denver that has pulled off a well functioning subway? Again, I would love one and hope that my cynicism is misplaced.

The thing with constructing subways though is that they take suuuuper long to construct. LA started on the extension of their purple line from DTLA to Beverly Hills in 2018 and it isn't expected to be complete until 2027.

My point being, current density rates are not what we should be looking at. Since planing, environmental reports, permits, etc, takes 3 years alone we should be looking at projected density levels of downtown in 2035. And that's If we started today!

I'm sure Denver could support a line from Union Station --> civic park --> Cherry Creek by then.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

That's a fair point. There seems to also be a balancing act between delivering an infrastructure project of great quality on an elongated timescale vs a lesser quality product in a more abbreviated time scale. For some of RTD's rail, it seems that there might have been an overemphasis on delivering something quick rather delivering something of high quality. The W line I think would have functioned much better as a commuter rail with 50-60% as many stops making a trip from the Taj to Union station in 30 minutes rather than the 45 minutes I believe that it actually takes. Also, RTD's emphasis on delivering something quickly I think caused much of the rail service to rely on using freight ROW, causing the lines to not serve residential and office corridors as well as it could have.

[TakeFive]

If at first you don't succeed....


Image courtesy City of Denver via Mile High CRE

City Partners w/National Western Center to Support Professional Advisors to Globeville & Elyria-Swansea
October 5, 2021 - Mile High CRE

The City and County of Denver and the nonprofit National Western Center Authority will provide $400,000 to Globeville and Elyria-Swansea neighborhoods to enlist their choice of professional advisors to secure community benefits at the National Western Center redevelopment. The funding, approved by Denver City Council on Monday, Oct. 4, will come from the city’s contingency funds and will help neighborhood residents advocate for what they want to be included in the redevelopment, will help them negotiate a formal community benefits agreement, and will support them in identifying future sources of revenue for a community fund.

It appears that City Council found a beneficial role to play on this Hot Topic; whatever makes everybody happier works for me.

BTW, that rendering is much improved over what I had previously seen.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not at all. Folks haven't really cracked the opportunity zone code. RiNo is all about that area being the next sexiness, plus sizable parcels under single ownership (no assemblage needed) with decent zoning. Development *at scale* up there is, relatively speaking - and especially relative to just about anywhere else in Denver-proper - just EASY.

Hines had teamed up with an equity partner from Chicago to do these projects. Their 1st project was a nice OB in downtown Houston; they were to do one project in RiNo but that may be the project they hit the pause button on.

IIRC, the ~100 unit project I posted about near Colfax and Federal was an opportunity zone project. Essentially I believe there's been a few done in 'B' areas like in Englewood, NE Denver etc but not a lot.

[jhwk]

The most critical rail project in Denver is the stupid Boulder train because otherwise Polis and the Boulder contingent of the legislature will continue to stonewall all other RTD capital spending and potential state support (tangentially related - I see a chance they’ll attempt a state takeover of RTD anyway based on Polis’s comments this year). It remains to be seen whether the Front Range Passenger Rail project will end up being useful transportation or if they will go with Amtrak’s bone-headed proposal for two trains a day with a 6-hour end to end trip time, but the FRPR project will likely ultimately build the Boulder train.

The second (and most imperative from a rail transit standpoint) is to fix the existing rail system by building a Munich S-Bahn style spine tunnel from Broadway & I-25 to Civic Center and then from Civic Center to Union Station. Phase 2 of that project would be a conversion of the light rail lines to commuter rail and underground platforms at Union Station to enable thru running.

I don’t think this is a completely unrealistic project for the region to handle - the tunnel would only be four miles long and Broadway is wide enough you could probably build that segment as cut & cover while keeping the street partially open. I’m imagining the downtown portion would need to be bored tunnels. There is also undeveloped or underdeveloped land in all the station locations that could be used for construction and then value capture. LA’s similar albeit shorter project cost $1.2B - I think the entire program could be accomplished for a project that is 1.5x-2x the size of Fastracks.

[TakeFive]

Not sure what if anything this says about the market


Rendering courtesy of Trez Capital via Mile High CRE

Newly Opened Mixed-Use Development in Denver’s Art District Secures $30M Bridge Loan
October 4, 2021 - Mile High CRE

Today, Trez Capital announced the closing of a bridge loan in excess of $30 million to Denver-based CRE Development Investments, led by Leon Cisneros, for the lease-up and stabilization of Art District Flats, a new mixed-use development with 126 units and 6,400 square feet of ground-floor retail in Denver’s popular Art District.

The recently opened eight-story, mixed-use community located at 1225 Santa Fe Drive is helping spur development in Denver’s rapidly growing Art District. In keeping with the neighborhood’s creative influence, Art District Flats has local art showcased throughout the building interiors and exteriors with works from a different local artist featured on each floor.

Sounds like they ran short on money. Whether they had higher costs or initial lease-up went slower than expected, so long as they can pay the Vig then no Biggie.

“We’re pleased to provide bridge financing to help lease-up and stabilize CRE Development Investments’ newest development, one that blends in well with the context of the surrounding community,” said Alec Barry, senior vice president, Central and Southern U.S., Trez Capital. “We’re continuing to expand our bridge lending program and due to our extensive, successful track record in the multifamily industry, Trez Capital was able to provide competitive cost financing to see this project to the finish line.”

[Arapahoe]

update on Denver's tallest building currently under construction: XD2

Construction has reached level 8.
Level 8 is the first of the standard residential floors and the remaining floors 8-22 will be identical.
Right below is the pool deck on level 5 with 40 foot tall columns suspending the residential tower over the open-air pool/hot tub deck.
The restaurant & bar are also on that level.
On levels 3 & 4 is a co-working area.
Leaseable retail space is located on street level.
Cool project!

[CONative]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

update on Denver's tallest building currently under construction: XD2

Construction has reached level 8.
Level 8 is the first of the standard residential floors and the remaining floors 8-22 will be identical.
Right below is the pool deck on level 5 with 40 foot tall columns suspending the residential tower over the open-air pool/hot tub deck.
The restaurant & bar are also on that level.
On levels 3 & 4 is a co-working area.
Leaseable retail space is located on street level.
Cool project!

The building is already leaning and crooked!!! Ugh!






Just kidding.

[TakeFive]

First thing is to stabilize the patient

Originally Posted by jhwk

The most critical rail project in Denver is the stupid Boulder train because otherwise Polis and the Boulder contingent of the legislature will continue to stonewall all other RTD capital spending and potential state support (tangentially related - I see a chance they’ll attempt a state takeover of RTD anyway based on Polis’s comments this year). It remains to be seen whether the Front Range Passenger Rail project will end up being useful transportation or if they will go with Amtrak’s bone-headed proposal for two trains a day with a 6-hour end to end trip time, but the FRPR project will likely ultimately build the Boulder train.

Despite previous bluster I don't expect the State to want anything to do with RTD. Any front range rail will have to be handled by an agency other that RTD so if the state wants to pursue that, then fine.

RTD understandably has suffered a good bit of trauma; the good news is that sales and use tax revenues are recovering nicely but there's never enough. This feedback from RTD is enlightening.

https://www.rtd-denver.com/news-stop/new...includes-bright-spots-and-question-marks

MacLeod underscored that all the supplemental federal funds are single infusions. Ultimately, he added, the agency will need to “set up a path forward to match projected expenditures to projected revenues.”

Sounds elementary perhaps but to hear many comments from the public would indicate many don't understand the concept of needing X revenue to pay for Y expenses.

Farebox revenues are still down and that's a problem.

Unknown is income from fares. When will customers return to pre-pandemic levels – or will they? Will the trend toward working from home reduce the volume of commuters? Will the pandemic prompt other changes and habits in city life and the need for public transportation?

For the Board, policy decisions ahead include restoring reserves to a three-month cushion; greenlighting deferred capital projects (many related to compliance and safety); and ensuring that FasTracks balances are protected to complete FasTracks obligations.

Yes, what about the FasTracks budget?

With the reduced revenue due to COVID-19 impact on the economy and ridership, MacLeod explained, the agency could end up using all FasTracks reserves on FasTracks debt and still end up with a deficit, further straining non-FasTracks resources.

Whatever monies RTD gets from the pending Infrastructure Bill should 1st go to protecting their existing system especially any needed maintenance. If feasible they should look at paying off some of the FasTracks debt.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

This is so typical of 'urbanists' to blame 'transportation.' The reason is you want an easy ride to your dreams; you want things done by fiat. Representative government is so messy and inconvenient. Rarely, if ever do Urbanists suggest taking their issues directly to the people. It's much more tempting to use the back door. In this respect you're no different from Trump who ached to do things by fiat.

Arterial road
is a high capacity urban road. Brighton Blvd has been a designated arterial road since before Hector was a pup.

It is possible to consider both the preferences of the majority as well as the minority in forging solutions.

Not sure what you're insinuating here, but I don't disagree with any of this; I merely point out where our decisions are being sourced from and how negligent data inputs greatly effect our built environment - like, such, as creating "arterial" roads.

I'd love to continue the streets conversation, but I'll keep this to development and just point you to something you should read if you're interested in really understanding how much parking and transportation consume in our cities. Hint, it's drastically more than a stadium civil engineer would even consider reasonable. Simply put, we spend too much time thinking about cars and where they should go when we should be prioritizing housing for people and associated services. It's the village mindset vs the 1980's mall developer.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-24/the-overparked-states-of-america

You'll want to click the link for the "study" in the second sentence. I don't just point to this one "study" because there are a great many of them, but this one gets more into the data science of the issue. Despite what politics and emotions might point to, I'm a big believer in data and facts and think they tell the story better than I ever could...