DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[bcp]

well said...clappy emoticon here.

[The Dirt]

That needs to go on a poster on my wall.

[bunt_q]

I could not possibly disagree more, the federal government has absolutely no business telling state and local government's what incentives they can and cannot provide. Screw Congress. I do not want any solution coming to me from a body that has representatives from Alabama and Kentucky in the room. Not everybody has the same competitive advantages, some locations only have a race to the bottom to work with. Everybody wants to live in California, California can afford to be business unfriendly, and their residents get more amenities as a result. New Mexico, probably less so. Same dynamic applies at a more local level. What you were proposing is not about leveling the playing field, it's about uniformity, which does nothing but harm the United States as a whole. Competition and diversity are good in all things, including governance, approaches to business, approaches to taxation.

And as for the argument that these subsidies do not make local governments money, that's a complete red herring. They wouldn't do it if they didn't make money. Granted, mistakes are made. But to assume that everybody is stupid undermines your entire argument. If companies are bailing before the benefits are conferred, write a better contract Mr. Mayor, make a better deal.

I am disappointed in BCP for agreeing with that statement. It is very unlike you to think a top down uniform approach to regulating business is good.

Apologies for typos, blame Siri.

[ski82]

Nowhere did I argue for uniformity. I argued for an end to the sorts of economic incentives that go to specific businesses. Of course states and cities should compete for business. They can do so through their tax structure. Californians with everyone wanting to live there...sure, charge higher taxes and provide more amenities...I never a argued otherwise.

On the profitability of these deals...I'll just say I'm very skeptical. Governments at any level generally don't run enough of a surplus anywhere in their model over the long run to be carving away revenues in exchange for needing to provide additional services. Texas should not baseline their budget assuming oil is at $110 just as California should baseline theirs assuming they will have facebooks and twitters going public every couple of months. And the arguement that they wouldn't do the deals if they didn't make money is, well, quite frankly laughable. Governments are not always known to be great stewards of finances...especially when it comes to long term commitments. I'll leave it at that. And I'm not trying to protect people who make stupid decisions. Im trying to protect people who would like to do the right thing but are forced into a stupid game by people that I see are making stupid decisions.

[bcp]

disappointed?? ouch, that hurts dad..just kidding.

i see your point...but this is not about regulating business, it's about a level playing field. some of this goes against states-rights, as well as 'vote with your feet' but none of these things should be absolute (nor should the feds)

i'd rather have the feds say "dont do this" than say "everybody should do this"...because the feds are notorious for good intentions and awful outcomes down the road. free-will at the state and local level to create an environment that attracts business is very different than throwing subsidies at companies. quality of life, labor, education, low taxes create much more stability than the "here's $250 million in tax breaks for ONE company". just like the feds should not pick winners, neither should local and state...level playing fields with structured, local plans that anybody can participate in.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

disappointed?? ouch, that hurts dad..just kidding.

i see your point...but this is not about regulating business, it's about a level playing field. some of this goes against states-rights, as well as 'vote with your feet' but none of these things should be absolute (nor should the feds)

i'd rather have the feds say "dont do this" than say "everybody should do this"...because the feds are notorious for good intentions and awful outcomes down the road. free-will at the state and local level to create an environment that attracts business is very different than throwing subsidies at companies. quality of life, labor, education, low taxes create much more stability than the "here's $250 million in tax breaks for ONE company". just like the feds should not pick winners, neither should local and state...level playing fields with structured, local plans that anybody can participate in.

Except the playing field isn't level. And never will be. South Dakota is not level with the Sun Belt. You could give a company $250 million in subsidies and they might still not locate there. But they might... with your "level" playing field, they could never ever compete with places that don't inherently kinda suck, because the world is not level. In your level world, the best incentive you could go is zero business taxes. What if that's not enough? Then you pay them. Don't kid yourself, saying "don't do something" is no less an intervention than saying "do something."

[Urbannizer]

Excuse me if this has been posted before.



http://zieglercooper.com/gables-jackson-street/

Originally Posted by Ziegler Cooper

Gables Jackson Street, a new urban residential development in the Cherry Creek neighborhood of Denver, Colorado boasts one of the best amenity packages in the area. This 12-story, 223-unit project includes a spacious ground floor lobby, courtyard and fitness center on Level 4, full-size dog park on Level 9, and amenity and pool deck on Level 12, with dramatic views of the Denver skyline and mountains beyond.

[Cirrus]

Great massing on that building. The subtle curve on the corner is very appealing.

I hope the materials turn out good. If any building in Denver can do it, presumably an amenity-laden luxury building in Cherry Creek is the one.

[bcp]

^ that's pretty.

[bunt_q]

Nice. Did I just miss it, or is it completely ambiguous about whether this will be a rental or for-sale project? Could that be intentional?

[bcp]

and are they being funny? Gables Jackson...not a single gable in sight! ^^^

[BG918]

Is that at Jackson and Dakota?

[Denver]

This look great- wish it was along first avenue though. For as much attention/density as the Cherry Creek Drive, Alameda, Colorado Blvd area seems to get, the neighborhood is not very walkable nor at there very many amenities nearby (save shot gun willies depending on if you call that an amenity). And before anyone says it is right next to Cherry Creek North, that location is still over a mile away from the heart of Cherry Creek and I doubt people who live in that area will be willing to walk that far to get groceries or dinner.

Edit: Gables is the same company that is developing 360 Monroe so I guess it makes sense that they would locate nearby.

[LAM]

Originally Posted by Denver

This look great- wish it was along first avenue though. For as much attention/density as the Cherry Creek Drive, Alameda, Colorado Blvd area seems to get, the neighborhood is not very walkable nor at there very many amenities nearby (save shot gun willies depending on if you call that an amenity). And before anyone says it is right next to Cherry Creek North, that location is still over a mile away from the heart of Cherry Creek and I doubt people who live in that area will be willing to walk that far to get groceries or dinner.

I agree, it's not very walkable. My doctor is right across the street from this project. It's pretty close to the Super Target across Colo Blvd. But, it would be such a crappy walk: crossing Colo Blvd. snaking through the parking lots for the strip malls along CB and then crossing the vast sea of parking to the Target itself. I suspect that most people in this class of building would just a soon drive to Whole Foods at First and University anyway.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Nice. Did I just miss it, or is it completely ambiguous about whether this will be a rental or for-sale project? Could that be intentional?

Nope, you didn't miss it, I couldn't find where it said apt. or condo either. Might very well be intentional.

Exterior looks to be mostly brick with some Alucobond panels, pretty high quality materials for a change for a large residential building around here.

[DenverPoke]

A couple of finds on the Denver Project Status Report:

Welton Park Apartments 2015D00079 2200 Welton Muti-Family Residential D-AS

Modera 2015D00038 2840 Blake 182 unit apartments Muti-Family Residential I-MX-

Monroe Street Condos 2015D00084 226 Monroe St Multifamily


It's nice to see some potential Welton Street development on the south side of Park Ave!

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

A couple of finds on the Denver Project Status Report:

Welton Park Apartments 2015D00079 2200 Welton Muti-Family Residential D-AS

Modera 2015D00038 2840 Blake 182 unit apartments Muti-Family Residential I-MX-

Monroe Street Condos 2015D00084 226 Monroe St Multifamily


It's nice to see some potential Welton Street development on the south side of Park Ave!

Nice large residential going in on Blake and replacing a junky industrial building. Gotta believe that we'll see a lot more of this along Blake and Walnut in the coming years, especially as the 38th light rail opens. I wonder when the streetscaping will improve (sidewalks and lights, etc)

[mojiferous]

Does anyone know what is happening on the southwest corner of 19th and Logan? (Not the Alexan uptown, across 19th)

The parking lot there is recently fenced off and sporting different company logos than the Alexan hole…

[denconyny]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Does anyone know what is happening on the southwest corner of 19th and Logan? (Not the Alexan uptown, across 19th)

The parking lot there is recently fenced off and sporting different company logos than the Alexan hole…

I think that it maybe is this:

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=104086

or not?

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Nice large residential going in on Blake and replacing a junky industrial building. Gotta believe that we'll see a lot more of this along Blake and Walnut in the coming years, especially as the 38th light rail opens. I wonder when the streetscaping will improve (sidewalks and lights, etc)

The streetscape all through River North has not kept with development. Even Market Street by the ballpark between 21st and Broadway still has non-existent or elevated sidewalks. It gets worse as you go north. Obviously Brighton Blvd has been slated for a major improvement but Blake, Market and Larimer should also be part of that discussion as the area transitions from industrial to more more mixed use and residential.