DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It wouldn't seem so but migration and local economic conditions are always important. Additionally, while supply chain issues seem to be improving it is still taking longer and longer to complete (especially) downtown projects. Despite the number of units under construction, all the projects in RiNo are likely to crawl to the finish line over the next couple of years. It's hard to project how many new projects will break ground.

Where did you find the information that downtown projects are taking longer to complete relative to suburban projects? Curious about that data.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Where did you find the information that downtown projects are taking longer to complete relative to suburban projects? Curious about that data.

It's mostly anecdotal but laniroj could explain it much better than I can.

Basically, it's a lot easier to build 3/4-story projects than 10 to 20-story projects. It's a matter of logistics but call it common sense if you like.

EDIT: My intent was intended to compare downtown with suburban projects but since you asked.... My emphasis on downtown was due to all the construction that's downtown.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Color me Impressed

Not Denver related but Boise ID based Micron Technology just signed a lease in Longmont. H/T BusinessDen.

https://www.userwalls.news/n/broe-group-drives-350m-investments-northern-colorado-3950275/

I was unaware that Micron has had an R&D facility in Longmont since 2012.

While this pales in comparison to Micron's recent announced plans to invest up to $100 billion in a Megafab in Central New York, I didn't know that any tech hardware companies had a presence in Colorado. Just a guess that they like Longmont as a sister location to their HQ in Boise for R&D. This is a good thing.

Colorado Springs used to have what I believe to have been a fairly significant tech hardware manufacturing presence. If memory serves, many/most of those facilities were shuttered during the post dot-com bubble and 2008 recession, but some may still exist...

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It's mostly anecdotal but laniroj could explain it much better than I can.

Basically, it's a lot easier to build 3/4-story projects than 10 to 20-story projects. It's a matter of logistics but call it common sense if you like.

EDIT: My intent was intended to compare downtown with suburban projects but since you asked.... My emphasis on downtown was due to all the construction that's downtown.

Well downtown is in Denver, so YES it does take longer there than suburbs! Those Denver projects are also of a different construction type than suburban projects (generally) which causes them to take longer. Case in point: a mid or high rise has to either frame concrete forms or erect steel with a pan for floors, which is generally much longer and labor intensive than pouring concrete on the ground or setting pre-manufactured floor trusses. Those bigguns also have lots more goodies in them which all add time and money.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It's mostly anecdotal but laniroj could explain it much better than I can.

Basically, it's a lot easier to build 3/4-story projects than 10 to 20-story projects. It's a matter of logistics but call it common sense if you like.

EDIT: My intent was intended to compare downtown with suburban projects but since you asked.... My emphasis on downtown was due to all the construction that's downtown.

That’s true, but you’re implying that supply chain issues are causing downtown projects to take even longer compared to a suburban project, ergo suburban projects aren’t as affected by supply chain issues. That’s what I understood as your argument.

[TakeFive]

Excellent

Originally Posted by laniroj

Colorado Springs used to have what I believe to have been a fairly significant tech hardware manufacturing presence. If memory serves, many/most of those facilities were shuttered during the post dot-com bubble and 2008 recession, but some may still exist...

I haven't really followed the industry for many years so I've updated my 'education.' It turns out there is still some hardware in CO.

With respect to Co Springs

Microchip Technologies plans to double workforce at Colorado Springs plant
Aug 11, 2022 - KOAA News5

Senator Bennet toured facility following passage of the CHIPS Act

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado — Congress is investing in America's semiconductor industry encouraging companies to expand their domestic production capability. One of the companies that will benefit from the legislation is Microchip Technologies which employs around 500 people at its Colorado Springs plant.

Microchip produces roughly 50 to 60 semiconductors that are used routinely in the automotive industry

I recalled Intel once having a significant presence in C-Springs. But as manufacturing processes changed Colorado lost out to AZ due to more favorable tax policies.

It appears other tech companies in C-Springs are all software companies. They do manufacture some defense related products.

Fort Collins-Loveland was once a tech mecca

Hewlett-Packard at one time had a huge presence in Fort Collins and Loveland with over 9,000 employees. They still have a presence in Fort Collins but they do warranty work and resales as I've bought at least one computer from them.
----------------------------

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That’s true, but you’re implying that supply chain issues are causing downtown projects to take even longer compared to a suburban project, ergo suburban projects aren’t as affected by supply chain issues. That’s what I understood as your argument.

Quite logical, understandable.

[Fritzdude]

There has been discussions on “remodeling” Speer Boulevard and rerouting a part of Cherry Creek through downtown. It’s been noted that parallel thouroughfares along a below ground bike path/creek does not entice a walkable environment. And as the city grows with new additions in Auraria campus, Kroenke properties, and River Mile, some proposals are being put out there to remove one line of traffic along Speer and turn it into an extended promenade styled after European parks with trees, walking trails, plenty of tree canopy, and accessible access to the creek. Not sure how far this promenade would go (possibly to Cherry Creek itself), but it could become Denver’s version of a lengthy Central Park, where people can play, eat, and mingle outside of the growing city. People would complain about slower commute times along Speer, but I think it would be a great asset for the city in the long run. Thoughts?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

There has been discussions on “remodeling” Speer Boulevard and rerouting a part of Cherry Creek through downtown. It’s been noted that parallel thouroughfares along a below ground bike path/creek does not entice a walkable environment. And as the city grows with new additions in Auraria campus, Kroenke properties, and River Mile, some proposals are being put out there to remove one line of traffic along Speer and turn it into an extended promenade styled after European parks with trees, walking trails, plenty of tree canopy, and accessible access to the creek. Not sure how far this promenade would go (possibly to Cherry Creek itself), but it could become Denver’s version of a lengthy Central Park, where people can play, eat, and mingle outside of the growing city. People would complain about slower commute times along Speer, but I think it would be a great asset for the city in the long run. Thoughts?

I agree it would be a great park amenity paralleling what is the city’s current preeminent urban spine.

Unless this comes along with a light rail expansion in-city (both Speer and W. Colfax are better corridors for light rail than any among those served by the current system), I don’t see how the transportation system (inc. roads) can handle that loss of total capacity.

And if that can’t be done, it isn’t as if Denver is hurting for massive amounts of parkspace, some of the best of which is in this corridor or near it.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Unless this comes along with a light rail expansion in-city (both Speer and W. Colfax are better corridors for light rail than any among those served by the current system), I don’t see how the transportation system (inc. roads) can handle that loss of total capacity.

Decades ago when 'they' first started envisioning light rail, they picked three primary routes. 1) along MLK Blvd 2) down So Broadway and 3) along West Colfax.

The blowback was severe. Minorites hated it along MLK Blvd, businesses hated it along So Broadway and everybody along West Colfax. Both major papers (at that time) wrote huge articles about how ridiculous the whole scheme was.

That's one BIG reason why they picked routes that would not be controversial.

More recently, Denver/RTD has found winning support along East Colfax for BRT to be excruciatingly difficult.

BTW, Nathaniel Minor has a celebratory piece about transit ridership in August. Probably too much wishful thinking but it's a fun read none-the-less.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

There has been discussions on “remodeling” Speer Boulevard and rerouting a part of Cherry Creek through downtown.

Kyle Harris wrote a niece piece in Denverite about this.

It sounds really cool but also fanciful.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Kyle Harris wrote a niece piece in Denverite about this.

It sounds really cool but also fanciful.

Great cities do fanciful things! There is roughly 200' between the road and the creek on the north side to make a pretty amazing promenade. The south side of Speer would become the main thoroughfare, but perhaps add some extra lanes to handle traffic in both directions. Meanwhile, add an elevated rail on the south side of the creek that aligns with the southern retaining wall. And in order to avoid putting tracks in the ground and take up extra ROW, elevate it 10' above the ground along the creek bank and gradually climb to 20' in order to glide over intersections as it follows the Creek from Glendale to Denver - then detour it through the new 'River Mile' and crosses I25 to land somewhere near Federal/Colfax - hooking up with light rail near the stadium. Have you seen the elevated rail systems that are going in China these days? It would work great along the trail and provide quick and efficient mode of transportation that doesn't get bogged down with current traffic and street lights. Expensive... yeah.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

There has been discussions on “remodeling” Speer Boulevard and rerouting a part of Cherry Creek through downtown. It’s been noted that parallel thouroughfares along a below ground bike path/creek does not entice a walkable environment. And as the city grows with new additions in Auraria campus, Kroenke properties, and River Mile, some proposals are being put out there to remove one line of traffic along Speer and turn it into an extended promenade styled after European parks with trees, walking trails, plenty of tree canopy, and accessible access to the creek. Not sure how far this promenade would go (possibly to Cherry Creek itself), but it could become Denver’s version of a lengthy Central Park, where people can play, eat, and mingle outside of the growing city. People would complain about slower commute times along Speer, but I think it would be a great asset for the city in the long run. Thoughts?

It has my vote. To me, this is the role of government. If you look at where Denver has generally had broad success, it's less in services and moreso in the built environment. 16th St Mall - huge success. South Broadway infrastructure - huge success. RiNo infrastructure - huge success. FasTracks - huge success. Convention center and 4th St streetscape - huge success. Union Station cleanup and infrastructure - huge success. Platte Valley parks, connections, infrastructure - huge success.

These are some of the more recent efforts but the City has MANY successes going back to it's founding. I really wish government concentrated more on building grand things that markedly increase the opportunity for enjoyment for many than the entrenched service model serving a relatively tiny portion of the population it has been geared toward since the 1960's. Some may say that's an entitled point of view (it is) but those things last forever and anyone can enjoy them so long as they are equitably dispersed throughout a City (which historically they haven't been).

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I agree it would be a great park amenity paralleling what is the city’s current preeminent urban spine.

Unless this comes along with a light rail expansion in-city (both Speer and W. Colfax are better corridors for light rail than any among those served by the current system), I don’t see how the transportation system (inc. roads) can handle that loss of total capacity.

And if that can’t be done, it isn’t as if Denver is hurting for massive amounts of parkspace, some of the best of which is in this corridor or near it.

Loss of capacity - not necessarily. The same capacity could move in 2 lanes each way, it would just take twice as long. For a major City, to be able to travel at 50+ MPH through a City center is ridiculous. Denver can absolutely afford to lose lanes on Speer to vehicles.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

...Unless this comes along with a light rail expansion in-city (both Speer and W. Colfax are better corridors for light rail than any among those served by the current system), I don’t see how the transportation system (inc. roads) can handle that loss of total capacity...

^Specifically with regard to this comment, I am convinced that City leaders do not want a convenient Cherry Creek to Downtown connection of any kind because Cherry Creek is and always has been a downtown retail killer. Even at the height of activity in say 2019, downtown retail was still completely overshadowed by Cherry Creek. If an easy connection is made between Downtown and Cherry Creek, it will completely gut downtown of foot traffic, tourism, etc and kill any hopes that downtown has of offering meaningfully enjoyable retail - unless we build 50,000 homes in the core. In most ways, I agree with City leaders (supposing that is their viewpoint).

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Loss of capacity - not necessarily. The same capacity could move in 2 lanes each way, it would just take twice as long. For a major City, to be able to travel at 50+ MPH through a City center is ridiculous. Denver can absolutely afford to lose lanes on Speer to vehicles.

If it takes twice as long, then by definition there has been a loss of capacity. Words have meaning, and that’s what it means: if the supply of line-miles is reduced and cannot meet the demand in an equivalent manner as before, the road has lost capacity. Where, how, and by what method are we going to offset this?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by laniroj

^Specifically with regard to this comment, I am convinced that City leaders do not want a convenient Cherry Creek to Downtown connection of any kind because Cherry Creek is and always has been a downtown retail killer. Even at the height of activity in say 2019, downtown retail was still completely overshadowed by Cherry Creek. If an easy connection is made between Downtown and Cherry Creek, it will completely gut downtown of foot traffic, tourism, etc and kill any hopes that downtown has of offering meaningfully enjoyable retail - unless we build 50,000 homes in the core. In most ways, I agree with City leaders (supposing that is their viewpoint).

This is pretty bad logic. By the same logic, the Domain should have already killed Downtown Austin with the rail connection between the two.

Further, if Downtown Denver is that vulnerable to collapse, then it isn’t on sound economic footing and deserves to collapse and be replaced by something better.

Edited to Add: if Cherry Creek were gonna kill DT, it would have done it with or without rail. It isn’t, so I doubt it ever could.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

If it takes twice as long, then by definition there has been a loss of capacity. Words have meaning, and that’s what it means: if the supply of line-miles is reduced and cannot meet the demand in an equivalent manner as before, the road has lost capacity. Where, how, and by what method are we going to offset this?

If the standard is travelling through a City center at 50 MPH, then yes we have lost capacity. That is an absurd threshold which I propose lowering. If one can get through a City center at 30 MPH, I'd say that's good enough and an acceptable "capacity" because IMO parks and pedestrian/bicycle enjoyment takes priority over moving vehicles at high speeds where those speeds should be much lower.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This is pretty bad logic. By the same logic, the Domain should have already killed Downtown Austin with the rail connection between the two.

Further, if Downtown Denver is that vulnerable to collapse, then it isn’t on sound economic footing and deserves to collapse and be replaced by something better.

Edited to Add: if Cherry Creek were gonna kill DT, it would have done it with or without rail. It isn’t, so I doubt it ever could.

It's not bad logic, this exact dynamic has been playing out for 40 years. It's an existing condition, it's not theoretical. Maybe Bunt has sales tax analysis of some sort comparing the two destinations? Otherwise, anecdotal info is more than enough. Look at all of the retail failures in the past 20 years alone. Going back 40 years, it's an even more devastating analysis.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by laniroj

It's not bad logic, this exact dynamic has been playing out for 40 years. It's an existing condition, it's not theoretical. Maybe Bunt has sales tax analysis of some sort comparing the two destinations? Otherwise, anecdotal info is more than enough. Look at all of the retail failures in the past 20 years alone. Going back 40 years, it's an even more devastating analysis.

You missed my key point:

If it can’t compete, then it shouldn’t exist in its current form. All you are doing is perpetuating bad businesses, sucking up human talent whose time could be better spent elsewhere, all on the premise that our public transportation network should protect downtown businesses rather than move people around effeciently to the places where they work and want to shop. If a business owner isn’t supplying a quality destination, that is their fault (not the city’s).

Sounds like transportation infrastructure policy here is picking winners and losers among businesses rather than providing a neutral public service. Sounds about right for Denver’s liberal elite.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by laniroj

If the standard is travelling through a City center at 50 MPH, then yes we have lost capacity. That is an absurd threshold which I propose lowering. If one can get through a City center at 30 MPH, I'd say that's good enough and an acceptable "capacity" because IMO parks and pedestrian/bicycle enjoyment takes priority over moving vehicles at high speeds where those speeds should be much lower.

I don’t disagree with the speed limit argument here, but that’s an entirely different argument and NOT APPROPRIATE OR RELEVANT HERE. The speed limit on Speer is 35, not 50. If you want people to follow a speed limit, engage in traffic calming measures that don’t reduce lane-miles and have better enforcement of those speed limits by the police. You don’t solve problems by reducing capacity, you just create new ones.

By the way: reducing speed limits is also a capacity reducer. Capacity simply means a road’s ability to move a certain number of people a certain distance in a certain time period. Reducing lanes and/or speed limit reduces the ability of the road to accomplish moving those people the same distance in the same time. That’s lower capacity. Period. Again, words have meaning.