DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Take a look at this map of historic districts in Denver and see where they're located. The designation is very obviously a tool used by wealthy, rent seeking property owners.

I think historic districts should be rare and small. We should have a cap on the amount of land area given to historic designation. If the city wants to grant the status to a new neighborhood/block, then they're going to have to take the status away from another area. I just don't find "feeling special" all that compelling given the housing, public health and climate crises we face.

agreed, I like that idea. However, we have gazillion empty parking lots surrounding and inside the core not to mention 62 empty acres with the whole river mile area right next to downtown. Take Arapahoe Square, in the center of everything, with very aggressive and dense zoning, yet still mostly parking lots. Its not like housing density is currently constrained by historic districts.

[mhays]

The existence of underused sites doesn't mean developable land isn't getting scarce and expensive.

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by mhays

The existence of underused sites doesn't mean developable land isn't getting scarce and expensive.

You think small residential plots with existing homes zoned as single family are more "developable" than large, empty parking lots with access to public transport & infrastructure, not to mention 30+ story zoning?

What actually happens to residential lots is that they scrape the existing house and put up a new mcMansion that maximizes the allowable footprint and height. While I don't object to this across the board, I do think some small, contiguous areas do have irreplaceable history and charm and we should try preservation in very limited cases.

And don't get too excited about ADUs. Most owners of ADUs in city neighborhoods will maximize their revenue by listing on AirBnb. However, any increase in supply is helpful in my view -- plus they enable those who might not otherwise be able to afford their mortgage to make ends meet.

[TakeFive]

How exciting! Now we expect two blocks in Congress Park to solve the climate crisis

Anecdote

I recall back when Biden was campaigning for the Presidency. He was rapping all about renewable energy and I thought: "Yes; let's do this."

Then Joe decides to start talking smack about "hydrocarbons" and I thought: "Joe, you might be getting ahead of yourself; you might be putting the cart before the horse (or to use a Colorado phrase) you may be getting out over your skis."

Fast forward and drivers (like those in Virginia) are grousing about the high cost of gas at the pump. It's up more than 50% since Joe was inaugurated (Way to go, Joe). Colorado is lucky as they still have their own O&G industry - at least until the Environmentalists chase them away. Is that when energy insecurity arrives?

Even though I do support Biden; he's worlds better than Trump; Joe has never been the sharpest knife in the drawers.

Interestingly, the coal fields of Kentucky have already sold out their capacity for next year and West Virginia is next. Turns out even England tuned their coal burners on earlier this year. For some reason the damn wind didn't blow like it was supposed to and they found themselves scrambling for electricity capacity.

If you want a villain then blame the American consumer for creating enormous demand for everything.

Sounds pithy

Originally Posted by mhays

The existence of underused sites doesn't mean developable land isn't getting scarce and expensive.

Source

The Denver metro area is known for its semi-arid, high-desert climate — though the weather is heavily influenced by the proximity of the Rocky Mountains and Front Range.

If you're talking about land in the vicinity of downtown the last decade has created tons of land value for those who have it. Never will it be that all of Denver's residents can fit within a 3-mile radium of the D&F Tower. But there is NO shortage of land near downtown and no shortage of land along the Colorado Front Range.

[DenvertoLA]

Since there is no limit to thread length anymore...

I'd be very thankful if someone did a round up of projects. Those were always something I'd look forward to

[TakeFive]

I tried to ask that map a couple of questions and it just ignored me. WTF?

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Take a look at this map of historic districts in Denver and see where they're located. The designation is very obviously a tool used by wealthy, rent seeking property owners.

Like which historically preserved buildings do you believe were undeserving?

I do not have any affinity for class talking points; it's pointless. There has always been and always will be many different socioeconomic levels in any society. And if you've paid any attention to My Posts, I don't have trouble rubbing elbows with anybody. If you think it takes money to have happiness, then you haven't met the people I've met.

Equally silly is to bemoan what happened early in Denver's history.



Source

DENVER’S OLDEST NEIGHBORHOODS ARE BOUNCING BACK
Undated unfortunately

Some of Denver’s oldest neighborhoods grew out to the north and east of downtown as both business magnates and middle-class craftsmen made their way west of the Mississippi. The 1863 Denver fire dictated a lot of the development of these emerging neighborhoods, as a new city ordinance mandated better residential construction, forcing homebuilders to abandon wooden frames and switch to brick buildings.

Each of these early neighborhoods is full of diverse populations and rich histories. All of them are also conveniently located near a lot of Denver attractions, such as City Park, the Denver Zoo, and everything downtown Denver has to offer.

Talk about short memories, well, we all seem to have the affliction.

While each of these neighborhoods suffered for decades from urban blight, all of them are rebounding as urban professionals and young families move into the area.

As recently as 2010 Denver did NOT have an affordability issue. Personally, I'd much rather celebrate the Good News as apposed to obsessing over any not-so-good news.

I love all of Denver's history and especially the structures that remind us of those that came before. Just a guess that Denver has a much smaller footprint of historically preserved properties than most cities do so I have no problem preserving those that deserve to be preserved

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Since there is no limit to thread length anymore...

I'd be very thankful if someone did a round up of projects. Those were always something I'd look forward to

Really, since DenverInfill started doing their area updates that's the best source but we do often summarize things by area as well.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

What actually happens to residential lots is that they scrape the existing house and put up a new mcMansion that maximizes the allowable footprint and height.

Which is why we need to reform the zoning code to permit up to four households per lot as a use by right. Over 70% of Denver's residential areas are limited to single-unit residential structures. If someone scrapes an existing small house and puts up a new 3000 SF box that maximizes the allowable footprint and height, we might as well allow that box to contain two, three, or four households instead of a maximum of one.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

You think small residential plots with existing homes zoned as single family are more "developable" than large, empty parking lots with access to public transport & infrastructure, not to mention 30+ story zoning?

I never suggested anything like that. But let's go there. The easiest development sites aren't enough to handle growth, and aren't always available to begin with. A healthy land supply requires broader availability. If you want a clue, look at the prices being paid.

[TakeFive]

I'm pretty close to being just fine with this

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Which is why we need to reform the zoning code to permit up to four households per lot as a use by right. Over 70% of Denver's residential areas are limited to single-unit residential structures. If someone scrapes an existing small house and puts up a new 3000 SF box that maximizes the allowable footprint and height, we might as well allow that box to contain two, three, or four households instead of a maximum of one.

because the more I've thought about it the more I've realized it will have scarcely any impact on neighborhoods closest to downtown.

It would have the most impact on neighborhoods like Virginia Vale and University Hills etc. I would even be a proponent of up-zoning to (say) five stories closer to Colorado Blvd and then dropping down to fourplex zoning.

I can visualize a few sites in West Highlands (for example) that have a crummy house that developers could build a fourplex and make it work. But on the whole the economics aren't there with most properties given the home values. To take a site with higher value home and scrape it to build a fourplex - I don't see most builders willing to take that risk. You'd have to get some really impressive rents to make it pencil (so much for affordability).

BTW, this is my understanding of what has happened in Minneapolis; it's been a Big Nothing Burger. For those sites (in areas) that are more affordable, the area won't support the rents needed to make a project pencil.

I'm not excited by the notion of chasing somebody that wants a nicer home to the suburbs but given the homeless problems many may seek greener pastures anyway.

EDIT: One of the bigger issues is that many sites have modest frontage but are deep which puts us back into building slot homes. Hmm, not sure how popular that will be?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

But let's go there. The easiest development sites aren't enough to handle growth, and aren't always available to begin with. A healthy land supply requires broader availability. If you want a clue, look at the prices being paid.

Urban construction is expensive (right?) and a lot of that is the cost of land. You know what they said long ago, right? "They aren't making any more land."

If you want housing that is more affordable as apposed to "designated affordable" housing projects, then you need to go where the land costs are lower as well as the cost of construction; otherwise you're just wishing and hoping that Santa Claus is real.

Here you go!

[TakeFive]

Checking out the latest greatest news, I ran into this

Being familiar with local developer Confluence Companies I thought this looked like a nice condo project.

Encore Castle Rock


Source

Called Encore Castle Rock the project is 124 one-, two- and three-bedroom units with ten different floor plan options. Units start in the upper $300.000's and it looks like the smallest unit is 927 Sq Ft.

Still in the process of being completed the project was 100% pre-sold as of June 15, 2021.

Couple of things:

This demonstrates how urban-suburban development is becoming more popular and if the value is there they'll sell like hotcakes.

No doubt both the land costs and costs of construction were much lower in Castle Rock compared to downtown Denver and if you work in the south metro area it's a short commute.

What's not to like?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Urban construction is expensive (right?) and a lot of that is the cost of land. You know what they said long ago, right? "They aren't making any more land."

If you want housing that is more affordable as apposed to "designated affordable" housing projects, then you need to go where the land costs are lower as well as the cost of construction; otherwise you're just wishing and hoping that Santa Claus is real.

Here you go!

By broadly upzoning, you can make developable sites more plentiful. If you go far enough, they'll be substantially cheaper on a per-unit basis.

That doesn't mean costs will drop to Kansas levels. But it would still help control costs for Denver.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I'm pretty close to being just fine with this


because the more I've thought about it the more I've realized it will have scarcely any impact on neighborhoods closest to downtown.

It would have the most impact on neighborhoods like Virginia Vale and University Hills etc. I would even be a proponent of up-zoning to (say) five stories closer to Colorado Blvd and then dropping down to fourplex zoning.

More likely is somebody takes an existing big house and splits it into 4x separate units, without demo and reconstruction, Cap Hill style. Certainly that's what the folks roving door-to-door in my neighborhood are worried about...

Semi-unrelated in my mind, at least... has anybody bothered to walk to see the extensions of the 7th Ave Historic District on Steele St? Granted, every district boundary will always be somewhat arbitrary. But it does seem weird to divide a district at the *street* rather than the *alley* (as is done downtown, where the alley between Market and Larimer serves as the boundary). The result of drawing the line at the street was one side of Steele is in the historic district, the other side of the street (with houses that are basically identical) is out. Now, however a person feels about historic districts... if you take them at face value and assume they're about preserving integrity blah blah, then adding the half block - so the integrity of the street, both sides, is preserved - makes some sense. Not many people experience historic architecture from the alley.

[TakeFive]

Just to be clear and to not conflate various issues

Set aside concerns for historic preservation for now.
Also set aside any discussion of affordability - for now.

I've stated before that I enjoy mixed-density and I love missing-middle housing.

Consider, for example, the block formed by Lawrence and Arapahoe streets, and 26th and 27th streets. This is where AvalonBay built their 1st 'downtown' project. It looks like this:

AVA RiNO
1185 26th St


Source

Before construction it looked like this:


Courtesy of MPC

Assuming that 3 stories was all zoning allowed, this full block could have easily been 3-story rowhomes/townhomes; this could have easily been a series of fourplexes or six-plexes. How cool would that have been? Very cool! Why doesn't the city require this if it's so desirable?

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

If someone scrapes an existing small house and puts up a new 3000 SF box that maximizes the allowable footprint and height, we might as well allow that box to contain two, three, or four households instead of a maximum of one.

I used "crummy house" in my example but in either case we are in full agreement here - generally speaking.

A couple of years ago you (Ken) posted a photo-example of a fourplex which immediately intrigued me - I think at the time we were primarily focused on Wash Park. Note: it did not look like a slot homes and it was brick. Assuming neighborhoods such as West Highlands, Wash Park, Congress Park (etc) required at a minimum a front or street facing use of brick should work.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

More likely is somebody takes an existing big house and splits it into 4x separate units, without demo and reconstruction, Cap Hill style. Certainly that's what the folks roving door-to-door in my neighborhood are worried about...

Setting aside "preservation" I'm not concerned about this. I might question the challenges of doing so - notably the economics. (Also I don't live there, so...)

One of the complicating factors

would be parking requirements if any whether by the city or the neighborhood. Letting Mr. Market decide may be sufficient however.

Note: I'm inclined to think that over time the ownership of personal vehicles will drop. Of course that would require better transportation options whether private or public and public options would depend on City residents willingness for funding.

As to affordability

I certainly understand the logic of four units being more affordable than one mansion. Whether such fourplexes would meet any normal definition of "affordability" or whether enough could be built to affect a simplistic demand-supply curve.... we can agree to disagree and that's fine.

[TakeFive]

I think I'd rather throw you a nasty curveball instead of debating the topic ad nauseum

Originally Posted by mhays

By broadly upzoning, you can make developable sites more plentiful. If you go far enough, they'll be substantially cheaper on a per-unit basis.

That doesn't mean costs will drop to Kansas levels. But it would still help control costs for Denver.

The easiest pathway to affordability would be if the 'city center' became an undesirable place to live such that those who couldn't afford to live in the suburb would seek to live downtown - which is how it used to be. Okay, that's not so likely to happen... OR is it?

As if the homeless issue and the addiction issues weren't enough, now we have roving bands of looters which started in California and are now spreading like the Coronavirus.

Speaking of the Coronavirus how will the Omicron variant affect city centers - as if it hasn't already done enough damage.

Anybody else see the irony of (presumably) black looters following the good will that was reached a year ago with the BLM movement?

Compare and Contrast

Also consider the aftermath of the George Floyd 'demonstrations.' A lot of "smash and grab" occurred end of May, 2020 forward and in these cases the demonstrators especially the troublemakers were more likely to be white than black. Portland would be the Poster Child for this. Even Scottsdale held a rally-protest in his behalf. So what happened?

Around the same time in Scottsdale, protests shifted from peaceful to violent very quickly. Police announced that there was some damage done to businesses near Fashion Square Mall.

So what happened next?

Before long the Scottsdale PD started arresting people starting with video evidence. They later moved to monitoring pawn shops and social media reselling sites. Fast forward to earlier this summer when they arrested a couple of more looters which brought the total number arrested to over 60 people.

The Bay Area is a mess. Assuming they don't have the capacity or will to find and prosecute looters what will that mean? You can trust that the private sector will adapt starting with closing of stores in areas with the worst shoplifting.

What's my Point?

It's more likely that the unforeseen dynamics of life will have more to do with preserving the health of city centers than any simplistic demand-supply development formula can have.

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Just to be clear and to not conflate various issues

Set aside concerns for historic preservation for now.
Also set aside any discussion of affordability - for now.

I've stated before that I enjoy mixed-density and I love missing-middle housing.

Consider, for example, the block formed by Lawrence and Arapahoe streets, and 26th and 27th streets. This is where AvalonBay built their 1st 'downtown' project. It looks like this:

AVA RiNO
1185 26th St


Source

Before construction it looked like this:


Courtesy of MPC

Assuming that 3 stories was all zoning allowed, this full block could have easily been 3-story rowhomes/townhomes; this could have easily been a series of fourplexes or six-plexes. How cool would that have been? Very cool! Why doesn't the city require this if it's so desirable?

What they built has more unit-density and given the near-RiNo location and presumably higher land costs, is probably the sensible economic choice given the prospective tenants.

The city is not the developer, nor investor, and shouldn't be deciding what is built except in zoning variance cases.

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It's more likely that the unforeseen dynamics of life will have more to do with preserving the health of city centers than any simplistic demand-supply development formula can have.

these smash and grabs are not limited to city centers...so don't get too comfortable. The major transaction processing companies with help of algorithms could probably make a dent in shutting down accounts associated with resale of stolen merch. Soon AI will solve all problems.

[TakeFive]

Looking for some life on the Sunnyside?

Alloy Sunnyside



https://www.multifamilypress.com/categor...fill-multi-housing-development-in-denver

11 November 2021

JLL Capital Markets announced today that it has arranged $71.8 million in combined joint venture equity and construction financing for Alloy Sunnyside, a 209-unit, Class A, mid-rise multi-housing development with 2,400 square feet of ground-floor retail in Denver’s Sunnyside neighborhood.

JLL worked on behalf of the developer, Prime West, to arrange co-GP capital with Angelo Gordon and LP joint venture equity through a REIT and to secure construction financing from a national money center bank.

Where's this at?

Situated at 4120-4158 North Jason St., the property is located on the corner of Jason Street and 42nd Avenue in the bustling Sunnyside neighborhood on the peripheral of the urban core of Denver. The Alloy Sunnyside is a half-block from the pedestrian bridge connecting to the 41st and Fox RTD Station...

Once completed in early 2023, Alloy Sunnyside will consist of studio and one-, two-, and three-bedroom units averaging 731 square feet.

[The Dirt]

Interesting rezoning going before committee this week. 2000 Blake Street, encompassing about 1/3 of the block across from the Rockies stadium, made up of two parcels is being rezone from a PUD to C-MX-8 (commercial, mixed-use, 8 stories). The property is owned by an LLC formed earlier this year, so it looks like there's interest in redeveloping this empty parking lot. Additionally, the abutting property making up the rest of the block is being rezoned from one PUD to another PUD. However, this is owned by the stadium district, so it looks like whatever they have planned here will be a separate project.

[TakeFive]

Guess I have to agree

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

What they built has more unit-density and given the near-RiNo location and presumably higher land costs, is probably the sensible economic choice given the prospective tenants.

The city is not the developer, nor investor, and shouldn't be deciding what is built except in zoning variance cases.

Not sure about the land costs though.

But continuing with my West Highlands example, what's to prevent a 'developer' from assembling a quarter, third, half or even full block, scraping it and building another nice AVA RiNo apartment building? So much for 'missing middle' housing?

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

these smash and grabs are not limited to city centers...so don't get too comfortable.

Fair point.

As if the building anti-liberal backlash needed any more fodder. Should we wait to see if those in Minneapolis who want to defund the police can solve this thorny problem? Best Buy wants to know.