DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Denver Dweller]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That requires creating policy and being rational beyond catering to the base. The Republican bench is still focused on banning CRT and making sure furries don't have litter buckets in schools.

Seriously??? It seems many Democrats are still struggling over which bathroom they are supposed to be using.

[TakeFive]

Up; Up and Done

New Vectra Bank Corporate Center
7222 E. Layton Ave



.....

.....
Images courtesy Vectra Bank

https://www.vectrabank.com/proactive-bank/media-room/new-corporate-center/

Vectra Bank will celebrate a significant organizational milestone as we begin moving into the bank’s new corporate center at I-25 and Belleview Station. The three-year, multi-million-dollar project represents a significant real estate investment during an uncertain and challenging time.

https://businessden.com/2023/01/18/vectra-bank-moves-into-new-hq-in-belleview-station/

After years of planning, Vectra Bank moved into a new custom-built, nine-story headquarters in the Belleview Station area of the Denver Tech Center last week. The local banking chain, a subsidiary of Zions Bancorporation in Utah, relocated its roughly 200 HQ employees to 7222 E. Layton Ave.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

Seriously??? It seems many Democrats are still struggling over which bathroom they are supposed to be using.

Hey, they still keep their lunatics in a corner. GOP has let the lunatics seize the asylum.

Just my perception .

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by rds70

Evans East has the building permit approved and ready to go.

Demolition at the Sports Castle Lofts should be starting soon.

Parq II is in the middle of building permit review.

955 Bannock has the building permit ready to go.

There are quite a few projects that could be next.

Financial markets seemed to have calmed down quite a bit recently with 10-year T-Bill rates dropping a half percent or so.

Consequently, it looks good for many apartment groundbreakings over the next six months. Maybe one a month?
-----------------------------

Nice Find

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

https://hospitalitydesign.com/news/hotels-resorts/virgin-hotels-denver-fox-park/

Pretty cool hotel out by the new Fox Park.

Virgin Hotels Denver Fox Park


Rendering courtesy of Vita Fox North L.P.

https://hospitalitydesign.com/news/hotels-resorts/virgin-hotels-denver-fox-park/

Virgin Hotels has revealed plans to launch its 10th property—and first in Colorado—in Denver in 2025. The 241-room hotel will serve as a key anchor of Fox Park, a 41-acre mixed-use development that broke ground in the heart of the Mile High City earlier this month. (September)

Apparently, Tryba Architects is putting equity in the deal.

The project is a collaboration between Vita Fox North L.P. and Tryba Architects. “We are thrilled to be a part of this exciting new cultural development in the burgeoning Denver market,” says Virgin Hotels CEO James Bermingham.

-----------------------------

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

Seriously??? It seems many Democrats are still struggling over which bathroom they are supposed to be using.

Nice retort.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Hey, they still keep their lunatics in a corner. GOP has let the lunatics seize the asylum.

Just my perception .

Thankfully. The lunatics nearly ruined the first Biden year before fading into the background.

Fair to say the ugly tail is now wagging the Republican dog in the House. Should be tons of fun.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...

It's hard for me to imagine the fun of dealing with such highly rational individuals. Still we're talking about those that show up being maybe one-tenth of one percent of the residents ?

Upon further reflection, Let's say Denver decided to push for city-wide four-plex zoning.

There's a number of Seniors who live in neighborhoods like Mayfair and Virginia Vale/Village where their house is likely F&C and it's their affordable housing. It may be the largest asset they have to leave to their children. Why should they care about new zoning if it raised the value of their home by say 15% (or more)?

^It's a very logical thought you present. Unfortunately, our process does not follow logical/reasonable thought. Our process consists of that 1/10 of 1% of 0.1% of people shouting at elected officials who do not have the stomach to stand up to that small collection of people for the better good.

As to raising property values 15% - most people you interact with during the public process do not believe dense new development increases property values. They are wholeheartedly convinced dense housing decreases property values even though there is 120+ years of recorded history which disproves them...then in the next sentence they say they will be pushed out of the neighborhood because of increased tax burdens they can't afford.....facts.

Methinks you have not been deeply involved in this process before and are relying on what it should be rather than what it actually is. Perhaps I am mistaken on your lived experience, and if so my apologies, but what our world should be versus what it actually is are two very different things.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Virgin Hotels Denver Fox Park


Rendering courtesy of Vita Fox North L.P.

https://hospitalitydesign.com/news/hotels-resorts/virgin-hotels-denver-fox-park/

^Put this atop the list of my favorite proposed projects!

[mhays]

Originally Posted by laniroj

As to raising property values 15% - most people you interact with during the public process do not believe dense new development increases property values. They are wholeheartedly convinced dense housing decreases property values even though there is 120+ years of recorded history which disproves them...then in the next sentence they say they will be pushed out of the neighborhood because of increased tax burdens they can't afford.....facts.

This reminds me of my park advocacy days. We proposed a Seattle Commons park in the 90s. People would say in the same breath that it would be a "park for the rich" and also full of crime and homeless.

Never did get the park, though a booming district still resulted. Denver got its Commons of course...I'm jealous.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

This reminds me of my park advocacy days. We proposed a Seattle Commons park in the 90s. People would say in the same breath that it would be a "park for the rich" and also full of crime and homeless.

Never did get the park, though a booming district still resulted. Denver got its Commons of course...I'm jealous.

That was the gist of the I-70 fights as well. In the same breath the project was going to ruin the place - yet another dirty horrible road tromping over a brown neighborhood - and in the next breath, it was going to lead to gentrification and displacement.

[i4isoar]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well that’s goddamn awful. Looks like a mediocre Marriott somewhere on the redneck riviera, where they used to send you for the sort of shitty conference that made you question everything about your life and that, thank God, zoom has driven to extinction. Just when we thought Denver was moving past the era of the land barge.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

[SIZE="3"]Everybody screaming about getting more density. There it is!

Originally Posted by bunt_q

No no no. That is exactly the problem. There is no rule that says density has to be awful looking.

I would love for some architecture/planning class to take this exact project and make it their semester project. Let's get the cost estimate and proforma from the developer. And then let's have 6 different groups re-design this in a not awful way - using real costs - to prove it could be done. (The interesting thing would be if you untether them from zoning constraints - or say, you can use restrictions from any zone district - don't view that as a constraint, assume City Council would make reasonable changes for better design, to also see what that would produce.) I bet you anything, even without that, though, there are 6 ways to do this better without messing up the economics.

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

So you want cheap, dense, housing - but you want years of review, design, and expensive structural features for each unique lot.

You know, there's efficiencies in mass production that make this affordable. And if it cost 3x per lot, you'll see less housing.

My two cents, but for whatever it's worth, I do think the redesign looks like a slight improvement over the original.

Moreover, regardless of aesthetics, high-density is always preferable to low-density. All other factors being equal, I'll settle for a land barge over a low-rise or a bunch of single-family homes on that same site. Just look at Singapore: one could argue that some of their high-density public housing is quite ugly, but they're still considered a world leader in housing policy and urban planning, as well as one of the best cities in the world to visit.

[TakeFive]

With Me Context is Everything

Originally Posted by i4isoar

My two cents, but for whatever it's worth, I do think the redesign looks like a slight improvement over the original.

Moreover, regardless of aesthetics, high-density is always preferable to low-density. All other factors being equal, I'll settle for a land barge over a low-rise or a bunch of single-family homes on that same site. Just look at Singapore: one could argue that some of their high-density public housing is quite ugly, but they're still considered a world leader in housing policy and urban planning, as well as one of the best cities in the world to visit.

America's grand experiment with affordable HUD-funded high rise housing was a utter disaster, most notably in Chicago and St. Louis. They became gang & drug infested prisons for those who lived there. This goes back to the ~1950's.

Thanks to a huge bi-partisan effort tons of money were poured into tearing down all the high rise buildings and replacing them with low rise mixed-income projects. Denver benefitted when it's own HUD mess although low rise was torn down and replaced with new mixed-income low or mid-rise housing.

Aside from the interesting guy I picked up who was from Switzerland currently living in Singapore and visiting Phoenix, Singapore is mostly Asian, especially Chinese etc and has a whole different ethos.

Crime rates in Singapore are some of the lowest in the world, with petty crimes such as pickpocketing and street theft rarely occurring, and violent crime being extremely rare. Penalties for drug offences such as trafficking in Singapore are severe, and include the death penalty.

America has done little to solve its drug and crime problem in the last 70 years and it's now getting worse and worse again.

When dude steals cars etc. in Denver da judge say "don't do that again" and lets dude out of jail. Within 24 hours dude is back to stealing cars etc.

I have no interest in debating conservative vs liberal but I can proclaim that subsidized affordable high rise housing will never happen; it's a non-starter.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With Me Context is Everything

America's grand experiment with affordable HUD-funded high rise housing was a utter disaster, most notably in Chicago and St. Louis. They became gang & drug infested prisons for those who lived there. This goes back to the ~1950's.

Thanks to a huge bi-partisan effort tons of money were poured into tearing down all the high rise buildings and replacing them with low rise mixed-income projects. Denver benefitted when it's own HUD mess although low rise was torn down and replaced with new mixed-income low or mid-rise housing.
America has done little to solve its drug and crime problem in the last 70 years and it's now getting worse and worse again.

When dude steals cars etc. in Denver da judge say "don't do that again" and lets dude out of jail. Within 24 hours dude is back to stealing cars etc.

I have no interest in debating conservative vs liberal but I can proclaim that subsidized affordable high rise housing will never happen; it's a non-starter.

Sorry, but you can't come onto a forum about urban development and spout such ill-informed nonsense without being called out on it. The complete failure of the American public housing of the 1950s was a result of the racist, segregationist social programs of the time. The drug use and crime were merely a symptom of this failure and their problems were ultimately rooted in economic and social isolation and lack of social support. They failed just as much because they were in food deserts and had no jobs nearby as they did because of drug-crazed criminals.

As an example the Cabrini-Green homes in Chicago, one of the most notorious public housing "disasters", was the subject of Gautreaux vs. the CHA and eventually ended up in a consent decree because it was conceived and run to concentrate poor minorities. That case didn't make its way through the Supreme Court until 1976, and as a result most of the large urban housing authorities went into consent decrees and began tearing down and revamping their public housing. From that point onward concentrating poor people was illegal, because poverty and crime are understood to be self-perpetuating and the state should not take part in that system. So the isolated towers were torn down and replaced by mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhoods. Like the ones in Denver.

The disaster was not a result of crime or drugs. It was the result of racism and discrimination both racial and economic.


We could still build larger, higher public housing. It is possible. Unfortunately it seems like a majority of Americans only pay attention to the information hand fed to them and struggle to fact check or question the "news" - and so much like people now have been convinced that current crime rates are equal to what they were a generation ago, most people are convinced that it was the "high rise" part of the projects that caused problems. So you're right that we probably won't build any ever again. Or at least until the generations that had first-hand knowledge have passed.

[mojiferous]

Oh, and it was never a bipartisan effort. The GOP fought long and hard to make sure that the residents of Chicago public housing were made out to the "welfare queens" and violent criminals that should be isolated and avoided. They worked to defund and reduce public housing programs and public assistance programs. They kept the minimum wage low and any help out of reach of most Americans. By the time the low-rise mixed-income projects were being built they had faded as a factor in most urban politics. Suburbs could easily build public housing too! But for the most part they don't because it is not and has never been a bipartisan effort.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

It seems like one of those projects near 8th and Lincoln must be starting soon

Just posted a Capitol Hill roundup. No signs of construction yet, but they're very active on the permitting side.


https://denverinfill.com/2023/01/capitol-hill-roundup-jan-2023.html

[TakeFive]

Have I ever mentioned how silly and stupid I think politics is?

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Oh, and it was never a bipartisan effort. The GOP fought long and hard to make sure that the residents of Chicago public housing were made out to the "welfare queens" and violent criminals that should be isolated and avoided. They worked to defund and reduce public housing programs and public assistance programs. They kept the minimum wage low and any help out of reach of most Americans. By the time the low-rise mixed-income projects were being built they had faded as a factor in most urban politics. Suburbs could easily build public housing too! But for the most part they don't because it is not and has never been a bipartisan effort.

I couldn't care less about political bluster, base-pleasing propaganda and posturing from either the left or the right.

What I care about is what happens after they leave the tee vee cameras and loud speakers behind, go back into the building, close the doors, go into conference rooms and get down to business. Either they accomplish something or they don't. When they accomplishment something significant what is it?

Credit William Claiborne February 6, 2000 per WaPo:

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley today signed an unprecedented $1.5 billion agreement to demolish virtually all of the city's high-rise public housing developments, widely regarded as the nation's worst examples of failed public housing policy.

Calling the agreement "historic" because of the magnitude of Chicago's public housing problems, Cuomo told a news conference the redevelopment plan reflects a "fundamentally different national policy" that HUD hopes will replace 100,000 deteriorating public housing units in cities across the country...

"We are going to take down the failed high-rises and stop putting bandages on bullet wounds," Cuomo said in an interview after the news conference. "We aren't going to invest in high-rises anymore, and we're going to replace those that are there with something that works."

All the groundwork for this fundamental change in housing approach by HUD was worked out in a lengthy process of negotiating through the 1990's.

BTW, Clinton was still President when the above was signed but it's also important to note this factoid:

Republicans swept the 1994 elections and won control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years.

Republicans retained their majorities in both chambers though their margin in the House eroded after the 1998 elections. J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois succeeded Georgia's Newt Gingrich as Speaker in the 106th Congress.

That is literally the definition of bi-partisanship given Congress must pass funding for all government functions.

[TakeFive]

I'm not aware if this has been pointed out before?

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...x_testVariant=cx_26&cx_artPos=1#cxrecs_s

A New York-based multifamily investment firm has made a play in Denver’s Uptown neighborhood for a new seven-story residential community.

Currently, the property is home to a Wells Fargo Bank branch as well as a park called Grant Street Plaza on the northern end. An LLC associated with Abacus Capital Group made the purchase of 1777 N. Grant St. and 1775 N. Grant St. from seller Wells Fargo Bank. The existing building, parking structure and plaza are up for demolition to make way for a new build.

[TakeFive]

Speaking of density metro-wide

These guys completely flew under my radar so it was fun to read about them in the Denver Business Journal.

Multifamily developer inks new office lease as it doubles down on Denver
Jan 18, 2023 By Kate Tracy – Reporter , Denver Business Journal

The company has 22 apartment projects in various stages of development in the metro area.

A growing multifamily developer has selected the Denver Tech Center as the location for its second headquarters. The Garrett Companies, an Indianapolis, Indiana-based firm that develops, builds and manages multifamily apartments, recently leased the eighth floor of 5075 S. Syracuse St. in the Denver Tech Center for a total of 22,000 square feet.

Kitch said the firm looked downtown and even south of Lone Tree before landing on the building in the Tech Center. “The Tech Center just seemed to be more centrally located for everybody,” he said.

https://www.thegarrettco.com/experience

SOUTHLANDS II - Aurora

The sister community to FIVE810 Southlands, Southlands II is constructed right next door. Walking distance to great dining and shopping locations

All images courtesy The Garrett Companies

These folks are smart developers; no wonder they are having so much success. Who else is building apartments with a 'missing middle' appeal that includes garages. There must be tons of people wanting to rent a unit with a garage.

[i4isoar]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With Me Context is Everything

America's grand experiment with affordable HUD-funded high rise housing was a utter disaster, most notably in Chicago and St. Louis. They became gang & drug infested prisons for those who lived there. This goes back to the ~1950's.

Thanks to a huge bi-partisan effort tons of money were poured into tearing down all the high rise buildings and replacing them with low rise mixed-income projects. Denver benefitted when it's own HUD mess although low rise was torn down and replaced with new mixed-income low or mid-rise housing.

Aside from the interesting guy I picked up who was from Switzerland currently living in Singapore and visiting Phoenix, Singapore is mostly Asian, especially Chinese etc and has a whole different ethos.

America has done little to solve its drug and crime problem in the last 70 years and it's now getting worse and worse again.

When dude steals cars etc. in Denver da judge say "don't do that again" and lets dude out of jail. Within 24 hours dude is back to stealing cars etc.

I have no interest in debating conservative vs liberal but I can proclaim that subsidized affordable high rise housing will never happen; it's a non-starter.

Ummm.... just so we're clear on the record here, I wasn't trying to make this political. Nor am I trying to suggest anywhere that the government should be the one managing these high-rise developments - last I checked, AMLI was still a private company, so I don't see where you got this idea about HUD funding for high-rise buildings in Denver.

I bring up Singapore as an example of a city that has plenty of ugly high-rise buildings in it, but is still considered a vibrant place in spite of that. My point is: ugly architecture, by itself, does not necessarily detract from a city's character, quality of life, or "urban fabric". Tokyo, Miami, Phoenix, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Hong Kong... they all have plenty of ugly buildings too, which people often forget about because it's usually the nicer parts that show up in postcards or tourism ads.

Do I wish AMLI's proposed plans for 9th and Broadway looked better? Of course. Do I agree that it looks like a "mediocre Marriott"? Yes, definitely. But at the end of the day, it's bringing more housing and more revenue (in terms of both taxes and more customers for local businesses) to that area, and to the city as a whole, and it's not much worse than many other buildings already built in that area.

[TakeFive]

Thanks for the clarification and your input

Originally Posted by i4isoar

Ummm.... just so we're clear on the record here, I wasn't trying to make this political. Nor am I trying to suggest anywhere that the government should be the one managing these high-rise developments - last I checked, AMLI was still a private company, so I don't see where you got this idea about HUD funding for high-rise buildings in Denver.

I bring up Singapore as an example of a city that has plenty of ugly high-rise buildings in it, but is still considered a vibrant place in spite of that. My point is: ugly architecture, by itself, does not necessarily detract from a city's character, quality of life, or "urban fabric". Tokyo, Miami, Phoenix, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Hong Kong... they all have plenty of ugly buildings too, which people often forget about because it's usually the nicer parts that show up in postcards or tourism ads.

Do I wish AMLI's proposed plans for 9th and Broadway looked better? Of course. Do I agree that it looks like a "mediocre Marriott"? Yes, definitely. But at the end of the day, it's bringing more housing and more revenue (in terms of both taxes and more customers for local businesses) to that area, and to the city as a whole, and it's not much worse than many other buildings already built in that area.

It never crossed my mind you were being political.

What I responded to was "public housing" in Singapore but whether that means government funded housing there I wouldn't know. Either which way I wouldn't expect you to know the colorful history of public housing in America.

With respect to AMLI it feels like they try to hit a niche for upscale apartments that are marginally more affordable than some others. Other than for the barge effect I also like the design just fine.

Also worth mentioning

is that Andy Cushen writing for DenverInfill did an excellent piece on Sun Valley redevelopment (albeit a little long) which was the 1st coverage of this neighborhood which includes both 'designated affordable' housing along with market rate housing.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Oh, and it was never a bipartisan effort. The GOP fought long and hard to make sure that the residents of Chicago public housing were made out to the "welfare queens" and violent criminals that should be isolated and avoided. They worked to defund and reduce public housing programs and public assistance programs. They kept the minimum wage low and any help out of reach of most Americans. By the time the low-rise mixed-income projects were being built they had faded as a factor in most urban politics. Suburbs could easily build public housing too! But for the most part they don't because it is not and has never been a bipartisan effort.

Chicago has had 3 Republican Mayors since 1900, the most recent ending in 1931. Not sure how the GOP had the power to accomplish what you assert above.

Politics aside, let's dive into your other post. Public housing...commonly referred to as 'the projects' in your typical community meeting were an utter disaster. The public housing strategy was born of the new deal and transformed a couple times, including a Supreme Court ruling in 1948 which administratively outlawed the FHA from 'maintaining homogeneous neighborhoods' (ie the racial segregation). The FHA was doing this by withholding loans both for home purchase and public housing development in certain areas - ie redlining. After this ruling, the racial strategy of public housing was 'technically' addressed and it wasn't until the Gautreaux v CHA in 1969 that the current model abandoning dense high rise in favor of scattered site was essentially mandated. To be clear, both rulings were needed to change the 'redlining' which was still happening. After 30 years of public housing failures, our gubment then introduced housing vouchers, which generally drove the apartment boom in the 60's/70's because it generally pushed occupancies of existing units which led to robust unit creation and a housing squeeze, though nothing of the likes we see today. Throughout the 50's, 60's, 70's public housing was still constructed en masse at a grand scale and still led to the creation of concentrated low incomes households, including with the Section 8 program (enacted in 1974) which then simply transferred unit production to private developers (by way of housing authorities essentially giving developers cash) instead of being done by housing authorities. This was also a massive failure as you can probably guess what happened - pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Alas, in 1986 Congress got rid of most the new construction dollars for Section 8 and essentially replaced it with Section 42 - low income housing tax credit - which followed the scattered site model and left it up to states as to what their housing priorities were for new unit production.

Regardless of politics, your assessment of those who experienced 'public housing' first hand are still vary wary of ANY non-owner-occupied housing. Community meetings are incredibly difficult for this simple fact and all the more reason that local planning departments should be proactively upzoning anywhere/everywhere we can be. If they don't Denver will follow the way of every other major blue city and become an enclave of the rich with a few slots for the lucky low income households who win the lottery.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Credit William Claiborne February 6, 2000 per WaPo:

Our gubment tried this in the post WWII years and it was a terrible disaster and ignited the "blight" movement. We tore down half a million housing units nationwide next to old industrial war factories and only replaced about 1/5 of them.