DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[TakeFive]

Friday's Follies

Originally Posted by Octavian

Tons of new construction photos available from 5/29:

I always love it when your do that.
She sure is taking on a finished look and looking real good. If she performs as well as she looks it will be time and money well spent.

Speaking of DIA, I noticed recently that passenger traffic for this year is running either a little behind or ahead of last year, essentially flatlining. Ed Sealover has a nice writeup on Frontier Airlines. Relative to Denver, Frontier has cut back 40% in the last 12 months while they expand elsewhere. This has clearly been a drag on DIA passenger counts.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I think that price says everything about the future of the Elitches site. Does the amusement park alone support that kind of number?

Since you brought it up....

What would the value of Elitches be if it were located on more nondescript land like in Centennial say near Arapaho Road between I-25 and Parker Road? Determine that value and then subtract from the price paid and you'd have a good comparison.

I don't doubt that at some point there will be additional development but what and when is the more interesting question.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

How do you figure that when he sank so much time and money into that hotel/office/observation tower/urban Target proposal? We all complain about land underutilization but ambitious projects take time. Look at the Hines office tower, it took them 15 years to pull the trigger on a speculative project.

Time is on my side.

Look back a few years, it seems like only yesterday, at the Hilton Garden Inn (or Embassy Suites) which were planned and developed long before anybody knew how successful the expanded convention center would become. Is there any doubt that if those sites were vacant land today that both would have been more prominent projects?

It would be awesome if a decade from now there was a groundbreaking on something iconic downtown.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I am skeptical of any proposal that includes a money-sucking observation tower. Give me a break. This isn't Dubai. When the observation tower is no longer part of the proposal, the thing gets value engineered into a semi-box - at least on the hotel side - and we see a 1,000 parking space garage added... basically, when Mr. Makovsky comes back down to earth... then I'll believe it's a real project.

Whether the proposal is feasible in it's current form is up for debate but, to say that Makovsky is a land banker and is just sitting on the property with no plans to build is false. What I know is that he's working hard on getting this to pencil out and he's willing to spend the time to get it to work. I'd rather he shoot high and settle for something more realistic than shoot low and we end up with something ridiculous like a 5 story stick built Aloft.

[DenvertoLA]

I just don't get why it would be taking him sooo long to develop block 162. The hotel vacancy rates are super low and I'm guessing his hotel is going to be a higher level of quality than all the White Lodging properties being built, therefor they are infringing on his hotels revenue potential. Not to mention the convention center is about to approve a major upgrade.

Then we have Hines building the 4th tallest office tower on pure speculation.

Seems to me it should happen in the near future or I just am missing some crucial information.

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

You shouldn't say things you don't know to be true. Mr. Makovsky has been working very hard on Block 162. I know him personally.

When dozens of lots across the city that have been vacant for years, perhaps even decades, are being developed...when I look at many lots that are for sale or lease that remain empty and they have the Makovsky name on their billboards and when I see block 162 as just another parking lot with some little garden on it--then I'm sorry Mr Ken, but the perception is hard to deny. You may know him, but many of us don't and we only see what it is apparent to us. Perhaps what I said is not "true" in your opinion, but until I see a construction fence, a rendering, a real proposal with financial backing then I stand by my comment.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by DownhomeDenver

When dozens of lots across the city that have been vacant for years, perhaps even decades, are being developed...when I look at many lots that are for sale or lease that remain empty and they have the Makovsky name on their billboards and when I see block 162 as just another parking lot with some little garden on it--then I'm sorry Mr Ken, but the perception is hard to deny. You may know him, but many of us don't and we only see what it is apparent to us. Perhaps what I said is not "true" in your opinion, but until I see a construction fence, a rendering, a real proposal with financial backing then I stand by my comment.

I understand your frustration. However, it's a very complicated site and project. Access is complex (Mall on one side, Light rail on another, and two one-way streets). Zoning is complex (16th Street sunlight/shadow ordinance). Two landmark historic buildings on the block. A desire to do a mix of uses (hotel, office, retail, etc.) and maximize density on the block. Every downtown high-rise that gets built is a miracle (ask Hines) but they don't get much more challenging than Block 162. And, in the 7 years he's controlled the block, the first 4 we were in the depths of a major recession. He's working very hard on it. Be patient.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I understand your frustration. However, it's a very complicated site and project. Access is complex (Mall on one side, Light rail on another, and two one-way streets). Zoning is complex (16th Street sunlight/shadow ordinance). Two landmark historic buildings on the block. A desire to do a mix of uses (hotel, office, retail, etc.) and maximize density on the block. Every downtown high-rise that gets built is a miracle (ask Hines) but they don't get much more challenging than Block 162. And, in the 7 years he's controlled the block, the first 4 we were in the depths of a major recession. He's working very hard on it. Be patient.

I'd assume these variables and restrictions have already been taken into consideration for any design blueprints and that they would be good to go once a hotel, retail anchor, and and office tenant buy in.

Wouldn't they have a basic layout to show prospective stakeholders, which could then be tweaked for height and design to fit whoever decides to partner with the builder? I would imagine that they could give a pretty realistic quote on cost/sqf' and are floating it around for potential Targets (pun intended).

[denconyny]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I understand your frustration. However, it's a very complicated site and project. Access is complex (Mall on one side, Light rail on another, and two one-way streets). Zoning is complex (16th Street sunlight/shadow ordinance). Two landmark historic buildings on the block. A desire to do a mix of uses (hotel, office, retail, etc.) and maximize density on the block. Every downtown high-rise that gets built is a miracle (ask Hines) but they don't get much more challenging than Block 162. And, in the 7 years he's controlled the block, the first 4 we were in the depths of a major recession. He's working very hard on it. Be patient.

At least will this end up a new tallest structure in Denver?

[blm3034L!fe]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I understand your frustration. However, it's a very complicated site and project. Access is complex (Mall on one side, Light rail on another, and two one-way streets). Zoning is complex (16th Street sunlight/shadow ordinance). Two landmark historic buildings on the block. A desire to do a mix of uses (hotel, office, retail, etc.) and maximize density on the block. Every downtown high-rise that gets built is a miracle (ask Hines) but they don't get much more challenging than Block 162. And, in the 7 years he's controlled the block, the first 4 we were in the depths of a major recession. He's working very hard on it. Be patient.

Ken, you mention all these restrictions and obstacles, it seems the owner is very interested in developing the lot. What the rest of us are truly curious about though. Is if this does become reality, is there a chance of it being new tallest tower in Denver!

And if that's the idea, can you give as vague idea on that? Are we talking a few feet? 50 feet? 100 feet!? Maybe even more? Honestly to Crack that 700' mark would be AWESOME! 800+ or even 900+

I highly doubt this City will see anything above 1,000 feet anytime soon but if that were to happen! Denver would hit Adulthood. We'd be in a pretty exclusive league. At least here in America that is.

[TakeFive]

Easy Like Sunday Morning

Awesome Update at Denver Infill
"Downtown Denver Residential Projects: June 2015 Update"
Posted by Ken Schroeppel on June 12, 2015


Development is Great; Successful People Development is Awesome

Photo credit: www.modernindenver.com

"Metro State's experimental hotel has turned into a surprising success"
Jun 9, 2015 by Ed Sealover, Denver Business Journal

The SpringHill Suites hotel on the Metropolitan State University of Denver campus was an experiment from the start, and school and hotel leaders hoped it could be profitable by its fourth year.

Instead, the 150-room facility that is partially run by students from MSU’s hospitality, tourism and events department turned a profit in its second year. It will reach revenue levels in its third fiscal year, which ends this month, that it wasn’t expected to achieve until year seven. And it recently received an award as “Property of the Year” from Sage Hospitality, which oversees its operations.

Education Rocks Rant
One thing that Phoenix seems to have gotten right is recruiting ASU to downtown and since they were willing to pick up the tab why would the ever aggressive Michael Crow not be interested? He's always looking for a way to justify is $600,000 annual earnings. The latest to move downtown is ASU's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and the The Arizona Center for Law and Society (that's a mouthful) now under construction. Rendering HERE.

With ASU's Big Push into STEM related degrees and the state/metro FINALLY taking an "All Hands on Deck" approach to eco-devo, one can sense that things are starting to roll. Without digging into the numbers it's safe to say that out of 55,000 students at ASU's main campus that STEM related degrees are becoming impressive. One thing I did catch is that in wanting to create an international appeal ASU now has nearly 9,000 international students. That compares to 1,500 international students in Boulder.

I don't know how much the two states/cities might compete going forward? I did see where Ball Aerospace will be working with Dr. Philip Christensen at Arizona State University on a NASA project. What Arizona wants is to be more competitive with Texas in recruiting companies from higher cost states.

Forget states and cities; What's important is Auraria. The State of Colorado, the City of Denver as well as the metro area should be purposely investing in growing the academic footprint of Auraria.

[corey]

Wow. The Sacranento Kings new arena right in downtown Sacramento is going to have a huge positive impact. It's placement couldn't be better. That part of downtown was a dump. The only negative thing is that it looks like all of the new restaurants and retail around it will be national chains. Still, it is just what that area needed.

[rds70]

New tower crane at 7th and Sherman:

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by corey

Wow. The Sacranento Kings new arena right in downtown Sacramento is going to have a huge positive impact. It's placement couldn't be better. That part of downtown was a dump. The only negative thing is that it looks like all of the new restaurants and retail around it will be national chains. Still, it is just what that area needed.

Vivek Ranadive and DeMarcus Cousins agree that the site will be great.

[DownhomeDenver]

We got an old building on 14th St that has had a partial collapse. Looks like it was built in 1909!!

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_283178...floors-being-evacuated?source=JBarTicker

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by DownhomeDenver

We got an old building on 14th St that has had a partial collapse. Looks like it was built in 1909!!

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_283178...floors-being-evacuated?source=JBarTicker

That's near my work. And I'm working late. I'll snap some shirty phone pics.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DownhomeDenver

We got an old building on 14th St that has had a partial collapse. Looks like it was built in 1909!!

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_283178...floors-being-evacuated?source=JBarTicker

Part of the facade above the storefronts came off. Nothing too major, though it wouldn't have been too good if there were patrons on the restaurant patios.

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Part of the facade above the storefronts came off. Nothing too major, though it wouldn't have been too good if there were patrons on the restaurant patios.

Yeh the media totally blew that one out of proportion. I was by there earlier too. Perhaps this would be a great time to redo that building.

[DenverPoke]

The sidewalk is closed and barricaded off on Cherokee in front of the site and the power lines on the property have been taken down. Surely they have to be getting close to breaking ground.

[DenverPoke]

Found this today:

***According to Redfin’s Denver broker, Michelle Ackerman, Twitter has reportedly begun looking for 60,000 feet of office space to accommodate 400+ employees; Twitter currently employs about 83 in the Denver area.

https://www.redfin.com/blog/2015/06/what...nologists-come-to-town.html#.VYCLxPlVhBc

[CharlesCO]

Wow, I had no clue Twitter even had a presence in Denver.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by corey

That model is beautiful! You don't see such finished models much any more, probably because of the level of detail you now get with the modeling programs. I think this building is visually a lot better than the Calgary building, which is a little weird looking. It's kind of like how the starchitects like Mario Botta and Santiago Calatrava produce slightly different copies of the same building, bridge, etc. over and over.

I prefer the Calgary building myself...of course that's my hometown, so I'm probably biased . I like the roof-line of this one better, but I like the podium on Eight Ave Place better.

All of Pickard Chilton's towers look almost the same IMO. 300 N LaSalle being a bit of an exception.