DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[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.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by 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.

I know that the stadium district has proposed putting a festival square/parking lot on their parcel and that they negotiated an easement with Xcel to use their property as well for this. I wouldn't expect much more than that given the easement and Xcel's future needs in downtown that will keep their old substation property exactly as it is.

But an 8-story building abutting one side of this square would be exciting.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

negotiated an easement with Xcel to use their property as well for this. I wouldn't expect much more than that given the easement and Xcel's future needs in downtown that will keep their old substation property exactly as it is.

I'm guessing the easement has to do with how that block is divided and not the substation itself. The north corner of the block got divided into two weird swoopy parcels, with Xcel owning the eastern one next to the substation parcel.

https://www.denvergov.org/media/gis/WebDocs/Assessment/AssessorMaps/asmt_02279.pdf

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I'm guessing the easement has to do with how that block is divided and not the substation itself. The north corner of the block got divided into two weird swoopy parcels, with Xcel owning the eastern one next to the substation parcel.

https://www.denvergov.org/media/gis/WebDocs/Assessment/AssessorMaps/asmt_02279.pdf

That's correct. There's is an access point to the substation there on the weird swoopy part, but I don't know if there's another reason for it such as underground transmission lines.

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by 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.

Interesting, but owners request zoning changes for reasons beyond new structures. There are no concept plans on file for either of their lots which usually precedes a zoning request. However, their zoning is currently inconsistent across the two lots with the one closest to 20th St has B-8 zoning and their adjacent lot is PUD. One side has surface parking and the other is dirt. Maybe they want consistent zoning change to expand their little parking lot. Just sayin

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Guess I have to agree
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?

zoning. Zoning dictates what a developer can build on any plot of land. If zoning allows it, then the city has very little say beyond design reviews required in certain districts. Of course if a zoning change is requested, the city has the power to block it if they don't like the concept proposed.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mhays

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.

If people want a clue then go out and try to buy residential land for dev/redev right now within 25 miles of Denver. It's damn near impossible...and you all thought buying a house with 10 offers was rough!

I laugh when people on this forum say we have enough land. If someone on this forum thinks we have enough developable land in the Denver area, please do us all a favor and get into the real estate development business as fast as possible so you can start contributing to the housing shortage solution instead of pontificating it. We certifiably have land, this is true, but we do not have enough buildable land that is zoned properly to accommodate housing units which meet the needs of existing households and the ones that want to live here.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

We certifiably have land, this is true, but we do not have enough buildable land that is zoned properly to accommodate housing units which meet the needs of existing households and the ones that want to live here.

I think you need to add in the places people want to live. Maybe that's what you mean by "meet the needs of existing households." Nobody wants to live far out on the eastern plains. But as a great man once said:

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find
You get what you need

[TakeFive]

Did you take a long siesta and just wake up?

Originally Posted by laniroj

If people want a clue then go out and try to buy residential land for dev/redev right now within 25 miles of Denver. It's damn near impossible...and you all thought buying a house with 10 offers was rough!

The fact that developers have bought up tons of land over the last decade... the fact that it takes time to entitle land... the fact that their are master developers selling parcels to builders for development...

Also, go back through the news for 2021 as to how many parcels of land have been sold in RiNo. There's a bunch of em.

Didn't you mention recently that you drove down So Santa Fe and noticed construction you weren't previously aware of? Well, before shovels went into the ground there was land that 'somebody' had to buy.

For you next excursion drive down So Broadway to south of Evans; there are several projects that have broken ground or are pending. That was all land that somebody had to buy.

Speaking of land development.


Carla Ferreira, director of Onsite Development and a principal at The Aurora Highlands, won the Young Leader Award.

Aurora Highlands Wins Five Awards at Denver MAME Awards
November 18, 2021 - Mile High CRE

The Aurora Highlands took home five awards at the Denver MAME Awards on November 6. The MAME Awards are hosted by the Home Builders Association (HBA) of Metro Denver and honors professionals in Denver’s residential building, design and real estate industry. The awards ceremony was held at the Hyatt Regency Denver at Colorado Convention Center. The MAME Awards represent Denver housing industry professionals’ recognition and appreciation of the Aurora Highlands’ accomplishments over the past year.

12,500 homes and four new schools isn't chopped liver.


How about 41-acres of Urban Renewal and TOD

Former Denver Post printing facility officially ‘blighted,’ paving the way for massive redevelopment in Globeville
Nov 29, 2021 By Esteban L. Hernandez/Denverite

Plans call for a children’s park, a dog park, a daycare, and community and cultural centers. It would all be constructed in phases over the next eight to 10 years, starting in 2023.

Wait... you want more?

The current vision for the site includes more than 3,300 apartment units, 1.9 million square feet of office space and more than 5,500 underground parking spaces. The developer has agreed to require 7% of the new apartment units to be income-restricted for 99 years.

In case you missed it...

EAST WEST PARTNERS TO REDEVELOP CHERRY CREEK WEST
November 24, 2021

A new place to live and work with an emphasis on pedestrian movement over car travel is coming to Cherry Creek West. Denver-based real estate and community developer East West Partners announced today that it is launching a transformative redevelopment of the land immediately west of the Cherry Creek Shopping Center in Cherry Creek. 

How about 72 acres on a hilltop?

Homebuilder pays $14M for 25 acres of Loretto Heights campus
October 13, 2021 By ERIC HEINZ | BusinessDen

The owner of the former Loretto Heights campus in the southwest area of the city has sold about a third of the site to a Denver-based homebuilder. Thrive Home Builders paid $14.4 million, according to public records, for what CEO Gene Myers described as about 25 acres along the north and west edges of the campus.

The company plans to build 322 homes, some detached and some townhomes.

Courtesy of Westside Investment Partners


Awesome classic by the Stones

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find
You get what you need