DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Ah, I see now - I thought you understood the history and social issues of public housing, and you don't at all.

Rather presumptuous. I simply pointed out that when government has gobs of money to build housing, there's a 50 year history of them really blowing it. The last 35 years of LIHTC housing have been a far greater success than anything from the mid 1930 to mid 1980 era. I also felt it important to note which political party was responsible for which public housing efforts. I'll leave the judgment to folks like you.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...Will the City agree with this?

It should be interesting to hear from mayoral candidates what their position is on this issue.

Polis has essentially killed rent control each session he's been in office. It will be interesting to see if he does so again. On it's own, rent control has a predictable result and we can look at places like NYC and SF to see what happens when rent control is administered.

I don't know about any of you, but I sure don't want our housing market to look like either of those places where housing opportunity is stagnant and families live three generations in the same place simply because their grandparents bought the place pre-rent control and they'd have to move to Colorado in order to afford housing to start a family.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Rather presumptuous. I simply pointed out that when government has gobs of money to build housing, there's a 50 year history of them really blowing it. The last 35 years of LIHTC housing have been a far greater success than anything from the mid 1930 to mid 1980 era. I also felt it important to note which political party was responsible for which public housing efforts. I'll leave the judgment to folks like you.

My father-in-law moved into Carver Houses in Spanish Harlem in the 1960's and spent his formative years there. Talking to him you do see the failure of the project model as the Black and Hispanic middle-class got the hell out of dodge and carved the heart and soul out of the communities. The product didn't have enough features to be attractive once redlining was removed as a barrier to migration and higher-income earners sought more attractive residences either in the suburbs or areas such as Midtown in Manhattan.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Rather presumptuous. I simply pointed out that when government has gobs of money to build housing, there's a 50 year history of them really blowing it. The last 35 years of LIHTC housing have been a far greater success than anything from the mid 1930 to mid 1980 era. I also felt it important to note which political party was responsible for which public housing efforts. I'll leave the judgment to folks like you.

Re-read any analysis of Gautreaux and what caused the collapse of post-war projects. "The problem was not at all economic isolation or lack of opportunity" is a take disconnected from every reasonable analysis of public housing.

Section 8 is not public housing. Section 42 is not public housing. These are programs to encourage private investment in low income housing and subsidize rent. They were designed to peel away investment from actual public housing and encourage private investment and better housing options for low income families, but in today's housing market they aren't very successful.

And putting an exclamation point on 3000 units in Queensbridge is the chef's kiss. The estimated need for public housing units in NYC is over 500,000 by 2030. The small number of units we're building today is not even close to what is needed.


And Wong - that failure was built into the projects. Even in Denver. Curtis Park, La Alma, Westridge, Sunnyside... all involved tearing down existing communities, placing a poorly-designed grouping of projects in the middle, and not encouraging any economic growth. Anyone who could afford to move left when they could and the economic decline accelerated.

[TakeFive]

There's no shortage of things one could debate and speculate about.

Speaking of the hazards of density apparently Denver's two tallest buildings may be feeling financial stress from rising interest rates - according to BusinessDen.

Reportedly some recent convention attendees have been uncomfortable with downtown's homeless issues. It's also been reported that some conventions are choosing to go elsewhere due to the same reasons. That's serious money that Denver will be losing.

Guess what the focus is of most of the mayoral candidates?

A year from now the air could go out of the push for density near the city center. Not predicting it but things do have a way of changing, often when you least expect it.

Good chance that the recent era of profligate spending in tech and with social programs could be under a lot of pressure.

Let's meet again this time next year and see what has changed or is obviously changing.

[bunt_q]

You keep tying homeless issues, office vacancy, and a sudden change in desire for density. Outside of some 1960s-era perspective, those seem like entirely unrelated issues.

Yes, work from home is impacting the office market. Obviously.

Yes, homelessness is a problem that City residents are universally concerned about.

And I see no softening at all in development demand - or relative increase in demand for low density development, not sure where that’s coming from.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I was looking at a listing of the tallest buildings in Denver and I found the proposed projects interesting. Do you all think any of these larger scale projects has a legitimate chance of being built?

More information Name, Type ...
Name Type Height*
ft / m Floors Anticipated Groundbreaking Notes
1620 Champa Residential 600 / 183 53 2023 Under Design Review
650 17th Residential 575 / 175 47 2023 Under Design Review
Two Tabor Office 492 / 150 35 - Proposed
Block 162 Hotel Hotel 450 / 138 38 - Proposed
Bell Tower Residential 410 / 125 36 2023 Under Design Review
1055 19th Tower 1 Residential 400 / 122 38 2023 Under Design Review
1055 19th Tower 2 Office 400 / 122 28 2023 Under Design Review
2099 Lawrence Mixed-Use 387 / 118 36 2023 Under Design Review
601 16th Mixed-Use 375 / 115 25 - Proposed
Downtown Denver Marriott Hotel 340 / 104 27 2023 Approved
1750 Sherman Residential 325 / 100 30 2023 Under Design Review
eVolve-East Residential 267 / 82 23 2023 Approved
Kenect Mixed-Use 250 / 77 24 2023 Approved
eVolve-West Residential 249 / 76 23 2023 Approved
Train Denver Mixed-Use 200 / 45 16 2023 Approved
600 Park Avenue Residential 148 / 45 14 2023

[TakeFive]

My posts are often littered with a tongue-in-cheek flavor

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You keep tying homeless issues, office vacancy, and a sudden change in desire for density. Outside of some 1960s-era perspective, those seem like entirely unrelated issues.

Yes, work from home is impacting the office market. Obviously.

Yes, homelessness is a problem that City residents are universally concerned about.

And I see no softening at all in development demand - or relative increase in demand for low density development, not sure where that’s coming from.

The post linked to proposed rent control was about proposed rent control in the legislature.

With respect to tall buildings, I'd assume it's more about how dated they are not literally how tall they are. Chicago is also having issues with their older taller buildings.

I did see a piece in the DBJ that a 1,000 (net) businesses have moved out of downtown since 2019 according USPS but it lacked context so not sure how interesting.

I have also stated that with financial markets loosening up, there's likely to be number of new starts over the next six months downtown. So when I reference a year from now that doesn't mean the present. We (the country) may suffer whip-lash later on.

The one advantage that 'sprawl' currently has over downtown is that it's easier to build 'workforce' housing there and the need for that is obvious.

I've always been a huge fan of the Colorado Convention Center so it pains me that people don't want to come to Denver. It didn't use to be that way.

True Story

There was a huge soccer tournament in November in NE Phoenix/Scottsdale. I picked up a guy from Dallas and we were talking up a storm about cities. Out of the blue he says "The problem with Denver is it has a big homeless problem" I wondered later how he had come up with that. Word gets around I guess. The difference is when visitors come to the desert they don't see the Valley's huge homeless problem. I also figured that being from Dallas the guy's likely a typical suburbanite. Then it occurred to me that likely reflects the average convention attendee?

I want Denver to reclaim it's downtown; I want it to be shiny and friendly.

[bunt_q]

You don’t actually see homeless people around the convention center or nearby. It’s a weird data point; the information feels about 9-18 months out of date.

Now, do I pass by open campfires on the sidewalk three blocks from my kids’ school? And does it take two days after I post this on facebook before I see the fire department swing by to suggest that maybe, just maybe, there’s a better way to keep warm? Yes. But tourists don’t see that stuff.

[TakeFive]

If you are referring to 'encampments' then we're not on the same page

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You don’t actually see homeless people around the convention center or nearby. It’s a weird data point; the information feels about 9-18 months out of date.

Isn't the Aloft Hotel real close to the convention center?

https://denverite.com/2023/01/11/aloft-hotel-homeless-temporary-housing-covid-19/

Randle Loeb, a 71-year-old longtime homeless activist, was working his day job at the Environmental Protection Agency when he heard the news: The Aloft hotel, where he had been living through much of the pandemic, would be closing to residents in April.

The 130-some homeless residents temporarily living there will be forced to find new housing — which was just what residents of downtown condo and apartment buildings rallied for before City Council last May.

BTW, I wouldn't claim that all homeless people are bad apples; in any barrel of apples there will be both good and bad apples.

Safety concerns raised for convention center visitors
Jan 13, 2023 by: Vicente Arenas

DENVER (KDVR) — New questions are being raised about safety around the Denver Convention Center.

Meteorologists from around the country attended meetings in Denver this week. Some said they didn’t feel safe while they were here. Some attendees said they came here to learn and enjoy the city. But that was not the case, as they headed out onto streets around the convention center. Several AMS members expressed concerns.

Katie Nickolaou of Michigan tweeted, “I did not feel safe walking around Denver,” and that several members were “verbally harassed” as they walked to their hotels.

City leaders have admitted crime was a problem in the heart of the city. So bad those leaders said some large conventions were choosing not to come here.

What you or I may or may not be bothered by is not the standard downtown needs to meet.

For example, for variety I like to drive two 'blue collar' areas. One is called Sunnyslope on the east side of I-17, the other is Metro Center on the west side of I-17. On the SE corner of Metro Center is a Walmart which won't be a part of the redevelopment. Nearby along the perimeter is Castles and Coasters so there's a lot of traffic between the two neighborhoods.

Both areas have a sizable homeless population. I'm unbothered and the people I pick up are wonderful normal hard working people. But it would be a terrible idea to hold conventions in these areas.

[bunt_q]

Or meteorologists just represent a particularly meek segment of society. I mean, this whole article reads a bit like a bad joke. Three weathermen go into the Aloft hotel bar…

[TakeFive]

Confirming the rumors

Not a big surprise; not a big deal - but interesting perhaps.

https://www.greeleytribune.com/2023/01/25/colorado-population-growth-slowed-2021/

For a state used to growing at a torrid pace for decades, the past two years were tantamount to Colorado crashing headlong into a demographic brick wall.

In 2021, the Centennial State added 26,489 new people while last year 27,717 new folks called Colorado home. The state hasn’t seen such anemic growth since Roy Romer occupied the governor’s mansion in 1990, a year when Colorado added barely 13,000 new residents.

Compared to the decade from 2010 to 2020, when the state gained an average of 70,000 new residents a year, the plummeting number of newcomers to Colorado in 2021 and 2022 was a dramatic downward shift.

Optimism for the future?

....because her office forecasts population growth to pick right back up, with an estimated 55,000 new residents arriving in Colorado through birth and migration in 2023. Even more will join Colorado’s ranks in the years leading up to 2030, when Colorado’s population is expected to top 6.4 million.

If the economy continues to leak air (or "drip, drip, drip" to use a different metaphor) it could have an impact on migration numbers or maybe weird changes to migration patterns. Buckle up!

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Re-read any analysis of Gautreaux and what caused the collapse of post-war projects. "The problem was not at all economic isolation or lack of opportunity" is a take disconnected from every reasonable analysis of public housing.

Section 8 is not public housing. Section 42 is not public housing. These are programs to encourage private investment in low income housing and subsidize rent. They were designed to peel away investment from actual public housing and encourage private investment and better housing options for low income families, but in today's housing market they aren't very successful.

And putting an exclamation point on 3000 units in Queensbridge is the chef's kiss. The estimated need for public housing units in NYC is over 500,000 by 2030. The small number of units we're building today is not even close to what is needed.


And Wong - that failure was built into the projects. Even in Denver. Curtis Park, La Alma, Westridge, Sunnyside... all involved tearing down existing communities, placing a poorly-designed grouping of projects in the middle, and not encouraging any economic growth. Anyone who could afford to move left when they could and the economic decline accelerated.

I don't think we disagree on too much and you make many good points, but it is disingenuous to say that public housing locations weren't proximate to opportunity. The jobs didn't leave the city centers en masse until the 1980's. The thing that left was white people to the suburbs which caused a whole sheeeeeeet storm of issues - many of which I assume you're basing some of your comments on (rightfully so). Much of the legacy public housing in big cities was quite literally surrounded by concentrations of blue collar jobs. Folks can debate why that was or wasn't sufficient opportunity for folks in public housing, but the jobs were there and proximate. Now if you're referring to how all of the housing authorities essentially segregated all of the public housing, then we're in perfect agreement as to the Gautreaux analysis.

It's also puzzling to hear you say LIHTC and Section 8 vouchers aren't successful. LIHTC, to your point, admittedly creates a drop in the supply ocean for how much affordable housing we need, but that's because the program isn't unlimited. Should Congress expand the LIHTC program, it could produce significant amounts of additional affordable housing. Section 8 vouchers reach at much greater scale than LIHTC housing. Some say it creates a cycle of housing dependency while others say it helps the most at risk with housing insecurity among us. To say either program isn't successful though, I can't understand why you'd think that. In lieu of zoning reform at a grand and seemingly unachievable scale, those are the tools we have to chip away at some scale for affordable housing creation at this time.

My point about Queensbridge is the concentration of those units in one tiny place. The market would never go and cluster 3,000 units of the same product on one closed off site. Interspersed on blocks in a neighborhood, yes. The government built a bad product at Queensbridge and many other places and almost universally across the country the outcomes were not positive and many of those housing developments are still in a pickle 60, 70, 80 years later.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

The market would never go and cluster 3,000 units of the same product on one closed off site.

Two words: Highlands Ranch.

I jest, I jest.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Isn't the Aloft Hotel real close to the convention center?

https://denverite.com/2023/01/11/alo...sing-covid-19/
Quote:
Randle Loeb, a 71-year-old longtime homeless activist, was working his day job at the Environmental Protection Agency when he heard the news: The Aloft hotel, where he had been living through much of the pandemic, would be closing to residents in April.

The 130-some homeless residents temporarily living there will be forced to find new housing — which was just what residents of downtown condo and apartment buildings rallied for before City Council last May.

That's wild, I didn't realize the Aloft hotel downtown was contracted out to house homeless. Those are some decent digs!

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

It's also puzzling to hear you say LIHTC and Section 8 vouchers aren't successful. Some say it creates a cycle of housing dependency while others say it helps the most at risk with housing insecurity among us.

I think both arguments are valid.

I know of some Landlords who grew tired of dealing with Sec. 8 renters b/c many beat up their units since it's somebody else's problem. The area where my son lives they have a few what I assume are Sec. 8 units among complexes of 400 to 700 units so the risk is minimal.

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I was looking at a listing of the tallest buildings in Denver and I found the proposed projects interesting. Do you all think any of these larger scale projects has a legitimate chance of being built?

More information Name, Type ...
Name Type Height*
ft / m Floors Anticipated Groundbreaking Notes
1620 Champa Residential 600 / 183 53 2023 Under Design Review
650 17th Residential 575 / 175 47 2023 Under Design Review
Two Tabor Office 492 / 150 35 - Proposed
Block 162 Hotel Hotel 450 / 138 38 - Proposed
Bell Tower Residential 410 / 125 36 2023 Under Design Review
1055 19th Tower 1 Residential 400 / 122 38 2023 Under Design Review
1055 19th Tower 2 Office 400 / 122 28 2023 Under Design Review
2099 Lawrence Mixed-Use 387 / 118 36 2023 Under Design Review
601 16th Mixed-Use 375 / 115 25 - Proposed
Downtown Denver Marriott Hotel 340 / 104 27 2023 Approved
1750 Sherman Residential 325 / 100 30 2023 Under Design Review
eVolve-East Residential 267 / 82 23 2023 Approved
Kenect Mixed-Use 250 / 77 24 2023 Approved
eVolve-West Residential 249 / 76 23 2023 Approved
Train Denver Mixed-Use 200 / 45 16 2023 Approved
600 Park Avenue Residential 148 / 45 14 2023

**Obligatory Two Tabor Recession Comment**

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Two words: Highlands Ranch.

I jest, I jest.

40 acres vs 14,000...

[BG918]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

**Obligatory Two Tabor Recession Comment**

Economists can throw out any data sets they use. If Two Taber is seriously about to break ground a recession is imminent.

[TakeFive]

A DISTINCTLY DENVER NEIGHBORHOOD

Platt Park offers a diverse portfolio of dining, arts and entertainment ... From here, it is easy to explore the sidewalk cafes and locally-owned boutique shops on South Pearl Street or the eclectic energy of South Broadway.

Carraway Apartments - Platte Park
1190 S Pennsylvania St



https://milehighcre.com/pinkard-completes-construction-of-carraway-on-penn-in-platt-park/

Pinkard Construction, a multifamily housing general contractor celebrating 60 years in Colorado, has completed construction for Carraway on Penn, a 34,619-square-foot multifamily residential property located just two blocks from the Louisiana/Pearl light rail station in Denver’s desirable Platt Park neighborhood.

Denver-based investment and development firm Confluent Development, in partnership with Narrate Companies, is the project owner. OZ Architecture is the architect for the project.

In case you slept in this morning, the calendar just rolled over and it's February 1st, 2023 and I'm expecting the announcement of three (3) new groundbreakings in the next two months.

The scuttlebutt is that SirLucasTheGreat knows which ones they are but he ain't talking.