DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

The numbers might be different but the effect is similar in either city.

Fair enough but I'll use this to slow-walk what has happened in Denver. Denver didn't/doesn't have the Bell Cows like Seattle so things have played out differently.

Going back to 2011/2012 developers like Alliance Res, Mill Creek, Greystar, Trammell Crow, Wood Partners, Hanover, AMLI, Lincoln Property and ofc Holland Partners and a few other developers were able to buy half- and full-blocks sites on the periphery of downtown. They started out building 4-story, then 5/6-story apartment projects (before later building 6-8-story buildings). In hindsight those could all have been 8-12 story (or higher) buildings. In essence the problem has NOT been land availability, rather the experts in the business chose not to even build to the density allowed.

You've got a nice collection of the largest apartment developers in the country that could have built two, three, four times as many units as they did. You're in the business, you tell me why didn't they do that?

Additionally over the last 2/3 years there's been a lot of parcels. multi-parcel sites and assemblages bought for development especially in the RiNo neighborhood that is in some stage of planning, zoning or looking for capital to develop. That's the nature of lead time needed with urban development. There is no shortage of land. It's just a slooow process playing out over time which is very normal (as you well know).

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

All I know is that my taxes went up this year. I paid both the highest amount and the highest percentage of my income EVER, in taxes this year. 24% of my total income went to local, State and Federal taxes this year. Tax breaks? What tax breaks?
I guess if I want tax breaks, my wife and I will need to contribute to the global overpopulation crises by reproducing. We would get a tax return, if we did that. But that would not be very responsible and honestly no one should be rewarded for that behavior. 10 billion people on Earth by 2050; yet we reward couples who reproduce and punish those who do not? Republican tax cuts were a complete joke.

I feel your pain but your tax cuts, if applicable didn't start until this year so you're hating the wrong party. You were paying Obama taxes. Actually I kid about that and Cirrus might recall the headlines in WaPo around Obama recommending a corporate tax cut to 25%. Both parties have been working on a package of tax reform for many, many years. It's always a heavy political lift to work out needed compromises.

Btw, including state and local taxes confuses the issue of Federal tax reform. However, that's typically a Republican talking point. Federal reform wasn't about tax breaks so much as a cut in tax rates partly by changing standard deductions which does help out the taxpayer not itemizing deductions.

You do bring up one of the more interesting ironies. It has been a Republican so-called family values issue to give better tax breaks for children. The irony is that the demographics for those with larger families are more likely to be Dem voters.

Lest anyone be confused except for John McCain (for Senate) I don't vote for Republicans and except for John McCain my vote has been largely symbolic in a very red state.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

They are outlawed in the vast majority of Denver’s single family zone districts, which are the majority of urban land here, even in central Denver, and also happen to be where ADUs are most likely to be built. Let’s not pretend Denver is even remotely leading on this front. YIMBY Denver has considered tackling ADUs as a flagship issue. But so far the City seems to have good momentum through Blueprint Denver, so we are in a holding pattern until plan adoption in June. If the City stalls in implementing the expected pro-ADU plan recommendations with actual ADU-friendly zoning, we will of course reconsider the need for more of a push.

I was specifically thinking of the area bounded by Federal, Colorado, Alameda and I70. After Scrolling around the map, I agree there is a lot of SU-A, SU-B, SU-C, SU-D and SU-G covering much of Alamo Placita, Country Club, and Congress park that should be changed to SU-A1 ou SU-A2, SU-B1 or B2, etc.

North of that, Cole, Clayton, Whittier, Skyline, and City Park West are all SU-A1, SU-B1 or SU-D1X with the acception of right by the golf course. I think all U-SU and E-SU designations that include a number in their district designation allow ADUs to some extent. Almost everything else in the area I described is already zoned for multiple units including all of lincoln park even thought most is built out with SFUs. Whether you can fit an ADU into the build envelope is another issue that needs to be addressed. Currently on my 25' wide U-RH-2.5 lot the upstairs would be limited to 9' wide due to the shortened envelope in the back of the lot.

Here are the U-SU districts that specifically allow ADUs and I think the E-SU districts are similar.

5.2.2.2 Specific Intent
...
B. Single Unit A1 (U-SU-A1)
U-SU-A1 is a single unit district allowing urban houses and detached accessory dwelling units with a minimum zone lot area of 3,000 square feet. Blocks typically have a pattern of 25 foot wide lots. This district requires the shallowest setbacks and allows the highest lot coverage in the Urban Neighborhood Context. Setbacks and lot coverage standards accommodate front and side yards similar to U-SU-A but allowing a detached accessory dwelling unit building form in the rear yard.

C. Single Unit A2 (U-SU-A2)
U-SU-A2 is a single unit district allowing urban houses with a minimum zone lot area of 3,000 square feet. Detached accessory dwelling units, duplexes and tandem houses are also allowed on certain corner lots only. Blocks typically have a pattern of 25 foot wide lots. Setbacks and lot coverage standards accommodate front and side yards similar to U-SU-A.
...
E. Single Unit B1 (U-SU-B1)
U-SU-B1 is a single unit district allowing urban houses and detached accessory dwelling units with a minimum zone lot area of 4,500 square feet. Blocks typically have a pattern of 37.5 foot wide lots. Setbacks and lot coverage standards accommodate front and side yards similar to U-SU-B but allowing a detached accessory dwelling unit building form in the rear yard.

F. Single Unit B2 (U-SU-B2)
U-SU-B2 is a single unit district allowing urban houses with a minimum zone lot area of 4,500 square feet. Detached accessory dwelling units, duplexes and tandem houses are also allowed on certain corner lots. Blocks typically have a pattern of 37.5 foot wide lots. Setbacks and lot coverage standards accommodate front and side yards similar to U-SU-B.
...
H. Single Unit C1 (U-SU-C1)
U-SU-C1 is a single unit district allowing urban houses and detached accessory dwelling units with a minimum zone lot area of 5,500 square feet. Blocks typically have a consistent pattern of 50 foot wide lots. Setbacks and lot coverage standards accommodate front and side yards similar to U-SU-C but allowing a detached accessory dwelling unit building form in the rear yard.

I. Single Unit C2 (U-SU-C2)
U-SU-C2 is a single unit district allowing urban houses with a minimum zone lot area of 5,500 square feet. Detached accessory dwelling units, duplexes and tandem houses are also allowed on certain corner lots. Blocks typically have a consistent pattern of 50 foot wide lots. Setbacks and lot coverage standards accommodate front and side yards similar to U-SU-C.
..
K. Single Unit E1 (U-SU-E1)
U-SU-E1 is a single unit district allowing urban houses and detached accessory dwelling units with a minimum zone lot area of 7,000 square feet. Setbacks and lot coverage standards accommodate front and side yards similar to U-SU-E but allowing a detached accessory dwelling unit building form in the rear yard.
...
M. Single Unit H1 (U-SU-H1)
U-SU-H1 is a single unit district allowing urban houses and detached accessory dwelling units with a minimum zone lot area of 10,000 square feet. Setbacks and building coverage standards accommodate front and side yards similar to U-SU-H but allowing a detached accessory dwelling unit building form in the rear yard.

We just need to slip some numbers into the zoning designations of the first neighborhoods I mentioned plus Park Hill, Belcaro, Wash Park, Wash Park West, Athmar park, Valverde, Sloans Lake, and West Highland. Large parts of Berkeley and Sunny Side are also already ADU Friendly.

I agree Denver can do much more to increase ADU construction but they are far from outlawed.

I will have to dig back in the wayback machine and look for the articles I read about the push to expand the districts that support ADUs and loosen some of the requirements for setbacks and other restrictions. I'm sure you have a much better handled on the city's commitment to this then I.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Fair enough but I'll use this to slow-walk what has happened in Denver. Denver didn't/doesn't have the Bell Cows like Seattle so things have played out differently.

Going back to 2011/2012 developers like Alliance Res, Mill Creek, Greystar, Trammell Crow, Wood Partners, Hanover, AMLI, Lincoln Property and ofc Holland Partners and a few other developers were able to buy half- and full-blocks sites on the periphery of downtown. They started out building 4-story, then 5/6-story apartment projects (before later building 6-8-story buildings). In hindsight those could all have been 8-12 story (or higher) buildings. In essence the problem has NOT been land availability, rather the experts in the business chose not to even build to the density allowed.

You've got a nice collection of the largest apartment developers in the country that could have built two, three, four times as many units as they did. You're in the business, you tell me why didn't they do that?

Additionally over the last 2/3 years there's been a lot of parcels. multi-parcel sites and assemblages bought for development especially in the RiNo neighborhood that is in some stage of planning, zoning or looking for capital to develop. That's the nature of lead time needed with urban development. There is no shortage of land. It's just a slooow process playing out over time which is very normal (as you well know).

Because apartment developers don't look out to hypothetical futures in 10 years. Their proformas involve prices at the time they're spent (land today, construction in a year or two, etc.) and projected rents mostly in the short term.

My city gets seven-story woodframes in highrise sites too. Until land prices get too high, woodframes can generally deliver a better cost/risk/reward equation. (I wish this wasn't true...my employer focuses on highrises.)

[TakeFive]

Speaking of the tortured pace of development, the Denver Business Journal is reporting that our friends, Holland Partners from mhays neck of the woods has now closed the sale of 99 So Broadway with plans for a 3-story, 238-unit apartment. This was first reported by BusinessDen in July of last year and later by Denverite in January of this year. This site would seem to have a zoning issue since it's right on So Broadway. I wouldn't be supportive of this specific NYMBY-ism - or is there some view plane that I'm not aware of?

Racy rendering pending...

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Speaking of the tortured pace of development, the Denver Business Journal is reporting that our friends, Holland Partners from mhays neck of the woods has now closed the sale of 99 So Broadway with plans for a 3-story, 238-unit apartment. This was first reported by BusinessDen in July of last year and later by Denverite in January of this year. This site would seem to have a zoning issue since it's right on So Broadway. I wouldn't be supportive of this specific NYMBY-ism - or is there some view plane that I'm not aware of?

Racy rendering pending...

You seem very obsessed with viewplanes. They really do not impact development much except in a few specific places. Where did that sense - that viewplanes are a big deal - come from, I am curious?

[CherryCreek]

In the good news category, the Ramble Hotel opens in Rino, with the NY Bar Death & Co.

https://crej.com/news/the-ramble-hotel-opens-at-river-norths-edge/


Getting lots of national attention.


https://www.cntraveler.com/story/death-and-cos-arrival-may-turn-denver-into-a-cocktail-city

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elvaramirez...-cocktail-bars-more-venues/#d858a081f331

Very classy, extremely well executed development! Can't wait to stop by for a cocktail.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I was specifically thinking of the area bounded by Federal, Colorado, Alameda and I70. After Scrolling around the map, I agree there is a lot of SU-A, SU-B, SU-C, SU-D and SU-G covering much of Alamo Placita, Country Club, and Congress park that should be changed to SU-A1 ou SU-A2, SU-B1 or B2, etc.

North of that, Cole, Clayton, Whittier, Skyline, and City Park West are all SU-A1, SU-B1 or SU-D1X with the acception of right by the golf course. I think all U-SU and E-SU designations that include a number in their district designation allow ADUs to some extent. Almost everything else in the area I described is already zoned for multiple units including all of lincoln park even thought most is built out with SFUs. Whether you can fit an ADU into the build envelope is another issue that needs to be addressed. Currently on my 25' wide U-RH-2.5 lot the upstairs would be limited to 9' wide due to the shortened envelope in the back of the lot.

Here are the U-SU districts that specifically allow ADUs and I think the E-SU districts are similar.



We just need to slip some numbers into the zoning designations of the first neighborhoods I mentioned plus Park Hill, Belcaro, Wash Park, Wash Park West, Athmar park, Valverde, Sloans Lake, and West Highland. Large parts of Berkeley and Sunny Side are also already ADU Friendly.

I agree Denver can do much more to increase ADU construction but they are far from outlawed.

I will have to dig back in the wayback machine and look for the articles I read about the push to expand the districts that support ADUs and loosen some of the requirements for setbacks and other restrictions. I'm sure you have a much better handled on the city's commitment to this then I.

I'm curious what you think the cost would be on these, and how people en masse would finance these? Heloc, 2nd mortgage? If its an "investment" it seems like the ROI wouldn't be very good unless you could split it off which you cannot.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

TIt would be quite a feat to move it and Xcel Energy has no intention of doing so. Some have talked about wrapping the building with a decorative screen. Either way, it won't be going anywhere soon. Consider it a permanent remnant of the Central Platte Valley's industrial legacy. It's an 11,000 SF building.

Xcel recently received approval to add an additional boiler to this plant to increase the capacity as the Zuni plant is being decommissioned in 2019 (I believe). That would add a new building to the site for the boiler and I would hope that Xcel would take the opportunity to re-skin the existing building as well. So there's hope for some improvement.

[CherryCreek]

Great news! It looks like Denver may take some serious action to outlaw FUGLY stuff from being built.

This will be fun.


https://www.denverite.com/can-denver-fix-fugly-problem-51272/

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

That is the Xcel Energy Steam Plant. In my DenverInfill blog post about the project on the adjacent parcel, I wrote about it:

"Did you know that Xcel Energy’s downtown Denver steam system is the oldest continuously operated commercial district heating system in the world? It’s true!

The original steam plant at the corner of 19th and Wewatta (official address is 1875 Delgany Street) was built by the Denver City Steam Heating Company and began providing steam heat through underground pipes to downtown customers in 1880 (Denver was just 22 years old at the time!). The plant was entirely rebuilt in 1972, which is the gold-colored building you see there today. The Denver Steam Plant is the hub for a network of over 16 miles of underground steam pipes that service over 130 customers in the downtown Denver area including many of downtown’s largest office buildings and major cultural, government, and civic facilities. Needless to say, Xcel has no plans to relocate the Denver Steam Plant, and its continued presence in the booming Union Station area gives us a small but important reminder of the Central Platte Valley’s industrial heritage. For more information about the Denver Steam Plant, below are links to two documents I stumbled across on the internet from which I gleaned the above information:

Denver’s 128-Year-Old Steam System: The Best is Yet to Come, by the International District Energy Association, District Energy, Fourth Quarter 2008 (a general news article about the downtown Denver steam system).

Engineering Assessment – Denver District Steam System, by Public Service Company of Colorado Engineering and Construction, March 2013 (a technical report that includes a variety of historical, engineering, and financial information about the steam system)."

It would be quite a feat to move it and Xcel Energy has no intention of doing so. Some have talked about wrapping the building with a decorative screen. Either way, it won't be going anywhere soon. Consider it a permanent remnant of the Central Platte Valley's industrial legacy. It's an 11,000 SF building.

Isn't the substation that used to be across from Coors' Field (and is surrounded by a nice red-brick facade) now abandoned? (Shown below, lower right hand corner).


If so, perhaps this could be re-deployed to cover up the steam plant.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

I'm curious what you think the cost would be on these, and how people en masse would finance these? Heloc, 2nd mortgage? If its an "investment" it seems like the ROI wouldn't be very good unless you could split it off which you cannot.

I have not priced construction or inquired about my neighbors builds. I think immediate utility and/or rental income potential are motivators on top of capital improvement. I'll let you know if I find out more.

I believe the one a block away is renting and I would not be suprised if the one across the street from me is going to be an apartment for her mother but long or short term rental is also a possibility.

Two doors south of me the house flippers of a few years ago managed to put a 3' easement from the sprawling mostly un-permitted 'garage' structure on the alley to the the street right along the house in front and split the lot. I contacted the assessor shortly after it occured to see how this was possible and never really got a clear answer. First guy I talked to said it was in the system as 2 lots now but he couldn't find any records accompanying the split.

They refurbished the house out front and sold it, then several years of intermittent work on the back building it hit the market last week at $375k already pending.

From the border between front and back properties:


From the alley:


and the crazy flex-room/3rd non-conforming bedroom/finished and tiled garage:

The alley behind a divey neighborhood bar, liquor store, restaurants, and dispensary are but a stamped steel garage door away
Zillow entry if anyone is interested

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You seem very obsessed with viewplanes. They really do not impact development much except in a few specific places. Where did that sense - that viewplanes are a big deal - come from, I am curious?

I probably forgot to mention that this was my selected 'obsession of the day.'

Actually for those who 'work' the downtown area you know your way around all the zoning. For the rest of us it's one more layer of confusion and it is a limiting factor on increased density where it's applicable, like in the Golden Triangle.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

In the good news category, the Ramble Hotel opens in Rino, with the NY Bar Death & Co.

Thanks for the post. Waaay cool and the links provided additional interest.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Great news! It looks like Denver may take some serious action to outlaw FUGLY stuff from being built.

https://www.denverite.com/can-denver-fix-fugly-problem-51272/

Great topic but nearly impossible to reasonably address. I'm really curious to see what the new Blueprint Denver comes up with but I fear the cacophony when it gets to the Denver City Council will be deafening.

[TakeFive]

When you talk about affordability, who are you thinking of?
That's easy: "It depends on who you ask?"

To 'sort of' piggyback on Interzen's fun posts and just for grins I scrolled through BusinessDen's posts on both their 'residential' and 'commercial' threads. There is an ongoing number of townhome/row house projects, smaller condo/mixed use projects scattered around different neighborhoods. This is all good and a part of increasing density and options. Still, it won't move the needle very quickly.

The Good News
Denver has benefited immensely from the invasion of National Developers because overall their build quality has been good - I'm thinking more of overall bones as opposed to individual exterior taste. They're the ones who had access to plenty of capital to timely move forward. It still takes time to go through all the hoops but imagine without them moving at maybe half the development pace as has happened.

The Bad News
We've had extensive discussions previously around the pitfalls of 'stick-built' zoning and that has been a negative for density. Additionally, as mhays summarized, developers don't employ a crystal ball when they pencil out projects and their tendency is to do that which is most expedient and profitable. The result has led (conservatively) to half as many units as could have been built. Visualize twice the number of units and tell me that wouldn't have made a yuge difference.

CherryCreek - you've made reference a couple of times to a view beyond downtown for better affordable opportunities/solutions. It's exactly true and a key. There's only so much you can accomplish within a small, relatively confined area in the central city.

There's no shortage of yuge housing opportunities along the light rail lines. It just hasn't appealed (yet) to the the 'national guys' who have the wherewithal to move expeditiously. But more dense development will happen... in time. Not all suburbs or cities are equally anal. Aurora and Westminster as examples are more amenable to both density and development. The W Line also has immense opportunity for more density. Even in more anal areas I'd expect more flexibility going forward with 'areas of change' similar to what Denver has done. Unfortunately this will play out over decades and doesn't fix our today obsession/needs.

In summary: Trust Mr. Market to figure it all out.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I
From the alley:


and the crazy flex-room/3rd non-conforming bedroom/finished and tiled garage:

The alley behind a divey neighborhood bar, liquor store, restaurants, and dispensary are but a stamped steel garage door away
Zillow entry if anyone is interested

At least the move in looks easy, but I'll tell you one thing, if I'm moving into a garage I'm AT LEAST getting a garage door with some windows and insulation!

[SnyderBock]

That's pretty steep price to pay to l8ve in someone's backyard and have under 1000sf of living space.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Looks like a standard tandem house permissable in U-RH-2.5.

There's 2 tandem homes like this (4 units) across from Sushi Ronin in Lohi on Umatilla. There's also quite a few examples in Cherry Creek North.

Forget the ADU, your lot has development potential!

[TakeFive]

Good to see that Portman Holdings' Union Tower West is now 100% leased with Serendipity Labs (coworking space) taking the 11th floor per the DBJ.
You don't suppose Portman Holdings might be the developer pursuing 650 17 Street? I can at least dream, no?

Denverite's Allan Tellis covers the 1st $193 million in bond issuance projects which means construction of the following.




Renderings courtesy City of Denver via Denverite

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Good to see that Portman Holdings' Union Tower West is now 100% leased with Serendipity Labs (coworking space) taking the 11th floor per the DBJ.
You don't suppose Portman Holdings might be the developer pursuing 650 17 Street? I can at least dream, no?[/SIZE]

No. That would mean working with Buzz and we all know that his projects are DOA unless his ass is entirely removed from the picture.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I probably forgot to mention that this was my selected 'obsession of the day.'

Actually for those who 'work' the downtown area you know your way around all the zoning. For the rest of us it's one more layer of confusion and it is a limiting factor on increased density where it's applicable, like in the Golden Triangle.

Only a portion of the GT Triangle is affected by a view plane. The rest of the GT is affected by the the vision of the neighborhood as applied through zoning. GT didn't want 40 story buildings in their neighborhood and this is reflected by zoning that increases density, but maxes out building height at ~20 stories.