DENVER | Main Development Thread #7 - Page 137

mhays · #**2721** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 4:55 AM**

A price like that could mean anything, even if they're (a) being honest, and (b) have some clue about what it will cost, both of which are big variables.

Maybe they want to sound cost effective instead of luxurious. The exact same building can have a 3/1 ratio of cost depending on what you include. It it just the shell and core or also the interior buildouts? What non-construction costs are included...land, design fees, debt?

mojiferous · #**2722** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 1:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Height max for the site is 650’.

I thought they had a variance approved when it was first proposed...

Denvergotback · #**2723** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 2:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojiferous

I thought they had a variance approved when it was first proposed...

I believe it was approved to reach a height of around 730'

wong21fr · #**2724** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 3:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Dope, I'm hoping we get our first world class hotel to kick off construction in line with this expansion.

Doubtful, though I figure we will get another 1,000 room behemoth courtesy of the old Emily Griffith property.

Maybe an Omni or a JW Marriott? My money would be on the Marriott now that there isn't a Marriott flag downtown.

PLANSIT · #**2725** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 3:23 PM**

All available information shows a 650’ building height max with the option for a 65’ antennae.

Article

jbssfelix · #**2726** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Doubtful, though I figure we will get another 1,000 room behemoth courtesy of the old Emily Griffith property.

Maybe an Omni or a JW Marriott? My money would be on the Marriott now that there isn't a Marriott flag downtown.

I'd probably agree. Marriott's also been doing a lot expansion of their flagship brands, Marriott & JW. I'd personally also take a Fairmont, seeing as how they know how to handle "ski towns", so Denver wouldn't be a huge stretch of the imagination for them.

TakeFive · #**2727** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

All available information shows a 650’ building height max with the option for a 65’ antennae.

Article

BusinessDen article.

I'm going to guess the owner of record - DMPT, LP - wants to sell the site/development rights, may even have a buyer subject to zoning approvals.

wong21fr · #**2728** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

BusinessDen article.

I'm going to guess the owner of record - DMPT, LP - wants to sell the site/development rights, may even have a buyer subject to zoning approvals.

That would mean that DMPT, LP wouldn't be getting 58 Chinese investors their green cards. The company has to deliver the project or there are no EB-5 visas issued.

This is a different kind of real estate play.

Denvergotback · #**2729** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 5:22 PM**

^ How does that work?

bunt_q · #**2730** Posted **Apr 13, 2018, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

All available information shows a 650’ building height max with the option for a 65’ antennae.

Article

I'd be curious to see the PUD language itself, do you have easy access? Looks like PUD 545 under the old code.

RyanD · #**2731** Posted **Apr 14, 2018, 2:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

61 story filler buildings...welcome to the future, I guess.

https://www.sightmagazine.com.au/20-20/snapshot/8827-snapshot-hong-kong-skyline

mhays · #**2732** Posted **Apr 14, 2018, 6:09 PM**

At some point, it's more efficient to build six in a row, rather that futz around with single towers.

FunctionForm · #**2733** Posted **Apr 15, 2018, 3:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

I believe it was approved to reach a height of around 730'

I don't know about you guys, but I sure rest easier at night knowing we have height restrictions.

SnyderBock · #**2734** Posted **Apr 15, 2018, 11:13 PM**

No need for height restrictions, unless it is to protect air traffic flightpaths. All other reasons for height limits are irrelevant.

What needs to change are parking requirements. There doesn't need to be any parkingvl requirements or any height restrictions. The restrictions need to be for construction quality, materials, design, function, street activation, energy efficiency, and things like that.

Mtnboi303 · #**2735** Posted **Apr 15, 2018, 11:46 PM**

Robert.hampton · #**2736** Posted **Apr 16, 2018, 3:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mtnboi303

It's interesting -- I like it more than the original Trump Tower renderings, but it obviously falls short of the Geller projects which fell apart. But its hard to read too much into into it from those renderings -- the parking podium looks like it could be a real travesty and its not obvious there is an amenity deck which would be strange.

RyanD · #**2737** Posted **Apr 16, 2018, 5:02 AM**

^ Also, that's not even close to 61-stories .

HighSt. · #**2738** Posted **Apr 16, 2018, 2:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanD

^ Also, that's not even close to 61-stories .

This building and Tabor II now both have renderings that show buildings that are significantly smaller than their plan submissions to the city would allow to be built.

Am I way off base to guess that these developers are applying for the "best case scenario" and producing renderings to illustrate what 60% of their ideal amount of financing would buy? Perhaps a way to hedge against Denver's massively backlogged planning department?

bunt_q · #**2739** Posted **Apr 16, 2018, 2:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighSt.

This building and Tabor II now both have renderings that show buildings that are significantly smaller than their plan submissions to the city would allow to be built.

Am I way off base to guess that these developers are applying for the "best case scenario" and producing renderings to illustrate what 60% of their ideal amount of financing would buy? Perhaps a way to hedge against Denver's massively backlogged planning department?

More likely a way of hedging against the possibility of a tenant coming in and wanting significantly more floor space than the Developer would be willing to build on spec.

CherryCreek · #**2740** Posted **Apr 16, 2018, 3:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by corey

The people behind the 1% growth limit piss me off. I’m sure they all own their own homes with big yards in wasteful post WWII American subdivisions. They love seeing their home values go up and don’t give a shit about anyone else trying to buy their first home. And do they really think their plan will solve any of the problems they complain about? They are also clueless about the array of negative effects this plan would have. Most of them, or at least their parents, moved here from somewhere else as well. Their biggest gripe in life is that traffic seems to be worse than it used to be, but they are the last people to ever take public transportation. Colorado is growing, but it is at a manageable pace as long as there is smart development.

I'm really interested to see how this initiative plays out. I think there is an excellent chance it passes. Who will lead the opposition to it? Who will fund it? What about the parties' governor candidates? Will they support or oppose?

I suspect home owners are more likely to vote than renters. Renters need to step up and get to the polls.

As an aside, I really don't think the initiative will be binding on the home rule cities.