DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Cirrus]

Well guys, congrats. We've gone from wishing downtown had a Target to making fun of people who don't want to drive to Target in the suburbs. Bike hate has really made this a better community.

[Denver]

As much as I love all the new buildings going up, I think seeing an old, decrepit building being revitalized is just as great. As such I present to you 2801 Welton.



Which will be turned into.....




For the story go to http://www.businessden.com/2015/07/09/developer-reviving-welton-st-building/

Source for both pictures: http://www.costar.com/costarconnect/MasterPage/Main.aspx?SiteId=30825&CheckSum=430219164

[corey]

The renovation of the Victorian building on Welton looks AMAZING! Welton will be unrecognizable in a few years. I understand the Deep Rock property was for sale for redevelopment. It may have already been sold. My brother's best friend from high school owns the hippy bar Cervantes Masterpiece, as well as several other bars around town. Soon it will be too divey for Welton and be turned into a Panera Bread or something. I do think the much touted Jazz history of the street will be nothing but a memory though, even when the upscale sounding Rossonian hotel and jazz club opens. Still, it is better than being a gang and drug infested hood like it was 30 years ago. I tried to post a photo of a rather fresh looking commercial building under construction I saw in LA over the weekend to get your opinion. I can't figure out how to upload something from my computer into the message window.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Well guys, congrats. We've gone from wishing downtown had a Target to making fun of people who don't want to drive to Target in the suburbs. Bike hate has really made this a better community.

Look, Denver has become a city where:

People sue over three story buildings - http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_284479...er-city-council-approval-church-rezoning

$2,200 one bedroom apartments are a thing - http://platformatunionstation.com/apartments.php

Housing prices are appreciating at 14% per year with negligible new stock coming online to offset. This forces people farther out.

And our transit agency is in hock to a city 40 miles away to the tune of $1.2 billion for stupidly promising to build a slow train that was never going to attract more than a few hundred riders, tying that agencies hands, probably for decades to come.

Look, Denver is a good city, a nice city, but it is not a great city. Nobody who is honest with themselves really thinks we'll ever build meaningful transit within the city. At least not transit that is good enough to attract wealthier choice riders. which is most of what will be left in Denver by the time we get around to it.

So it is completely rational for folks to fight for every single inch of roadway capacity. Our cars are the only things keeping a roof over our head, and there's nothing going to bring transportation alternatives to places where regular people live. It's why I lose absolutely no sleep over road projects. However controversial they might be in the 20-something I'll live in a hovel and "be urban" crowd, road projects have overwhelming broad public support. And not just here: see this link http://beyonddc.com/log/?p=8469). Because real people - grown ups with real problems, not the Denver cruiser crowd - have it hard out there. And they need their cars.

My confidence in this place is shaken. It'll come back when I see real efforts at addressing affordability that are coupled with an admission from our political leadership and the public that growth is good and, with the appropriate measures like actual transit, not token bike lanes - we can accommodate that growth in a way that makes neighbors' lives better, not worse. But let's be real, that's not happening, and the affordability ship has sailed. I think it's questionable now whether Denver can ever become a great city, as opposed to just a really nice one.

Edit: It's unfortunate that we didn't start with the massive old building stock that the New Yorks and San Franciscos did, which alters the equation somewhat. Our old building stock is mostly single family, which probably has the opposite effect.

[bunt_q]

Here's what I think we need, in no particular order:

1. A construction defect ordinance out of the new council. (Odds: good.)
2. For Morgan Carroll to be trounced and humilated in her run for Congress, possibly even falling off a stage. (Odds: she seems coordinated enough, but I'm hopeful on the trouncing.)
3. City transit plan. (Odds: happening.)
4. A credible implementation plan for said transit plan. (Odds: unlikely in the short term.)
5. A major pro-development urbanist pushback at the grassroots level. (Odds: lacking. Would be more credible - and I'd be more motivated for sure - if growth gave people hope for a better future within Denver; see Item 1.)
6. Approve both the Stock Show and Aerotropolis ballot measures in November. This will be the icing on the cake for catalyzing the whole northeast quadrant, particularly with the Eagle line opening and I-70 getting done. (Odds: good).

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

My confidence in this place is shaken...I think it's questionable now whether Denver can ever become a great city, as opposed to just a really nice one.

I hear you, and I don't even disagree. I left, after all, and have never regretted doing so.

But SSP has become a toxic place to talk about it. I don't know about you, but hating everyone in the city is not why I'm here.

Maybe moving on was easier for me because I was less invested, or maybe I harbored fewer illusions about Denver's potential for greatness.

[bunt_q]

I think SSP has just become a forum for venting. There's nothing we can really do - the politics here are against us. Remember, the overwhelming majority of people here are still people who chose to move here because Colorado and Denver are the best place in the world. They don't see any problems, let alone want to talk about any. I truly believe most of those people will be shocked in 10 years when they realize there were problems developing that are now affecting them, and they'll be wondering where the problems came from and why nobody did something about them sooner. But other than the perceived out of control growth, and the resultant anti-growth sentiment, nobody sees any problems. As you know, we have always been a city of cheerleaders. I'm not a naturally negative person, I'm actually quite the optimist. And I wouldn't always seem negative if everyone around me wasn't blindly celebrating all the time. I'm sure the next six posts will be examples of all the great things we are doing - we don't like to think we are anything but awesome.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Well guys, congrats. We've gone from wishing downtown had a Target to making fun of people who don't want to drive to Target in the suburbs. Bike hate has really made this a better community.

Perhaps that's because the pro-bike crowd in Denver only plays lip service to other transportation alternatives and argues, without hesitation, that increased bike infrastructure is the answer to everything (including biking from the Highlands to a Target in Glendale). Maybe it's different in DC (hell, it is different in DC), but it's infuriating for those of us here who have used transit on a daily basis and stopped using it because the local service sucks, sucks, and sucks (did I mention that it sucks?). Such a stringent orthodoxy to what is a limited transportation mode does not make for a great city.

Couple this with a pro-development backlash that's occurred because growth is occurring so fast and you're laying a very shaky foundation to build a great city upon.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Here's what I think we need, in no particular order:

1. A construction defect ordinance out of the new council. (Odds: good.)
2. For Morgan Carroll to be trounced and humilated in her run for Congress, possibly even falling off a stage. (Odds: she seems coordinated enough, but I'm hopeful on the trouncing.)
3. City transit plan. (Odds: happening.)
4. A credible implementation plan for said transit plan. (Odds: unlikely in the short term.)
5. A major pro-development urbanist pushback at the grassroots level. (Odds: lacking. Would be more incredible - and I'd be more motivated for sure - if growth gave people hope for a better future within Denver; see Item 1.)
6. Approve both the Stock Show and Aerotropolis ballot measures in November. This will be the icing on the cake for catalyzing the whole northeast quadrant, particularly with the Eagle line opening and I-70 getting done. (Odds: good).

I've always hoped that Ken could be the leader on such an effort, but I'm not sure if his big tent philosophy for urbanism is the best approach. The cyclist community should be a natural ally in the fight to make Denver more urban, but I've come to the conclusion that most in the cycling community (such as Denver Streetsblogs) don't give two shits about urbanism as long as roads are narrowed and bike lanes are added.

Oh, and here's hoping for Morgan Carroll to go down in flames. I'll take Coffman any day over here tort-loving ass.

EDIT: Though Ken's recent bitch-slapping of inane comments on his blog is quite refreshing.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Well guys, congrats. We've gone from wishing downtown had a Target to making fun of people who don't want to drive to Target in the suburbs. Bike hate has really made this a better community.

Oh, you mean the Curmudgeon Coalition is getting you down?

Nothing will ever be good enough. Remember the early 2000s, when Denver would never get new skyscrapers, no one would ever live downtown, and transit would never make it to the airport?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Edit: It's unfortunate that we didn't start with the massive old building stock that the New Yorks and San Franciscos did, which alters the equation somewhat. Our old building stock is mostly single family, which probably has the opposite effect.

Or the Chicago's and Philly's that haven't seen massive growth. Existing housing stocks in a variety of forms don't alter the equation somewhat, it changes the equation entirely. Large stocks of existing multi-family housing + anemic to negative growth for a few decades = cheap housing for wannabe urbanites. That equation isn't applicable to Denver in any conceivable way.

I often remember a quote from an interview with David Owen Tryba where he mentioned that downtown should have 120,000 residents now and living in the old stock that was annihilated in during the latter 20th century. Having that critical mas of people now versus having to build it up over the next 20 years would have certainly affected how Denver approaches growth and densifcation. We would probably have had the NIMBY waves 20 years ago and would now be welcoming growth with open arms similar to Seattle. There would be more negatives to go with the positives, but a lot of the growing pains would at least be done.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

when Denver would never get new skyscrapers, no one would ever live downtown, and transit would never make it to the airport?

I don't recall anybody ever saying those things. At least not on this forum. Except for Matt, with the skyscrapers. But he'd probably tell you that we're still not building skyscrapers. We're building bulky slightly-taller-than-the-Tech Center buildings.

Admittedly, there was some pessimism about transit early in the decade (and again at the end). But remember, in 2000 we were only three years out from Guide the Ride getting trounced at the polls. By the time Fastracks came around in 2003, there was no question it'd pass.

[TakeFive]

I'm more of a Big Picture guy but let's try to look at some nuts and bolts to see how they fit.

Using Ken's recent excellent update on residential construction we find that within the 1.5 mile radius of the D&F Tower over 6,200 apartments have been built since January of 2010. There are currently an additional 4,500 units under construction. There's also a good number of apartments being built outside of the 1.5 mile radius. I'll guess another 1,500 units maybe more. The total of over 6,000 apartment units under construction is close to the number of units that have been completed since Jan. of 2010. There's easily another 4,000 units in the pipeline.

Nobody could have predicted the strength in popularity of bodies wanting to live downtown. Development as we all know happens over many years. Within the next 18 months it's highly probable that we reach market balance and likely an oversupply of apartments.

Developers will continue to build up to a vacancy rate of 7% or more. For example Dallas metro has recently had vacancy of 7% or more but the growth and absorption is still strong.

With all of Denver's development (for the most part) being downtown where it's more costly to build, construction has occurred more methodically as opposed to the ease of building 3-story walk-ups in a Dallas suburb.

As to the Denver economy and continued robust growth downtown, that's for another, more speculative post. Things can and do change though.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

over 6,200 apartments have been built since January of 2010. There are currently an additional 4,500 units under construction. There's also a good number of apartments being built outside of the 1.5 mile radius. I'll guess another 1,500 units maybe more. The total of over 6,000 apartment units under construction is close to the number of units that have been completed since Jan. of 2010. There's easily another 4,000 units in the pipeline..

Except that we've added about 72,000 people to Denver County since 2010. Assume half are in the core, and assume 1.5 people per unit (these are not the Denver average 2.27, after all)... we needed 24,000 units to keep up.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Nobody could have predicted the strength in popularity of bodies wanting to live downtown. Development as we all know happens over many years. Within the next 18 months it's highly probable that we reach market balance and likely an oversupply of apartments.

I am sick of hearing this, that is absolute nonsense. We have a State f***ing Demographer's Office, we pay them to do EXACTLY what you say nobody could have done. And they have been doing it VERY accurately, I might add.

So here, if you'd like me to show you some real magic... here we go... I predict - doing the impossible here, hold your breath - that Denver County will have 857,074 people in 2040.

Now, adding some fancy-pants mathematics to this, it means we will need to construct roundabouts 80,000 new housing units to accommodate them, assuming our average household size stays the same (if it gets smaller, and it probably will continue to do so, we'll need more units).

We're not going to fit all of those units in Stapleton and GVR. So if I were a real wizard, rather than somebody content to act shocked and surprised - nobody could have ever predicted this, oh my, never ever - I might go ahead and suggest that we put policies in place to accommodate 80,000 new housing units.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Developers will continue to build up to a vacancy rate of 7% or more. For example Dallas metro has recently had vacancy of 7% or more but the growth and absorption is still strong.

If we let them...

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With all of Denver's development (for the most part) being downtown where it's more costly to build, construction has occurred more methodically as opposed to the ease of building 3-story walk-ups in a Dallas suburb.

Half of Denver's growth, maybe. And around one-fifth of metropolitan growth, let's not kid ourselves.

[TakeFive]

It's silly to argue over statistics: there's too many variables. When I referenced downtown development my whole post had been about residential apartment growth. Depends also on what the definition of metro area is and my post went to the last 5 years.

My memory of Denver goes back to the 1970's. Through various cycles I've never seen anything close to the current residential boom downtown. Why would demographers be able to foresee this coming?

The pace of development has continued to accelerate over the last five years. Why didn't the pace start out stronger and accelerate more quickly? Simply b/c the fancy pants experts didn't have the foresight of brilliance you have when looking backwards.

[Zmapper]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I am sick of hearing this, that is absolute nonsense. We have a State f***ing Demographer's Office, we pay them to do EXACTLY what you say nobody could have done. And they have been doing it VERY accurately, I might add.

So here, if you'd like me to show you some real magic... here we go... I predict - doing the impossible here, hold your breath - that Denver County will have 857,074 people in 2040.

Now, adding some fancy-pants mathematics to this, it means we will need to construct roundabouts 80,000 new housing units to accommodate them, assuming our average household size stays the same (if it gets smaller, and it probably will continue to do so, we'll need more units).

We're not going to fit all of those units in Stapleton and GVR. So if I were a real wizard, rather than somebody content to act shocked and surprised - nobody could have ever predicted this, oh my, never ever - I might go ahead and suggest that we put policies in place to accommodate 80,000 new housing units.

Agreed in full.

Next step: What is your plan to accommodate 80,000 additional units within Denver boundaries?

[DenverPoke]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

Agreed in full.

Next step: What is your plan to accommodate 80,000 additional units within Denver boundaries?

About 400 more 2020 Lawrence's and a few more bike lanes.

[mhays]

Demographers are statisticians. They generally don't predict changes in want people want, or how people think. The best experts in that sort of thing are generally the developers, with a lot of help from architects, realtors, etc.

Downtown Denver might overbuild housing, a bit. But it gets better every year from an urbanity and services perspective. Once the ball is rolling with downtown housing it tends to keep rolling. There can be headwinds like rising land costs which would affect housing costs, but otherwise I haven't heard of any impending problems that would hurt demand. The Whole Foods for example will encourage a new wave of residents.

I'm chuckling over the idea that Seattle is welcoming growth with open arms. I wish. We charge huge fees...basically the opposite of the incentives many cities have. The only policy help is the lack of parking requirements which developers enthusiastically take advantage of, and the relatively predictable (though lengthy and costly) entitlement process if your project doesn't require major variances or use of public space.

Regarding affordability, here's a big ace in the hole: Even though construction is expensive and new units are expensive, when you add supply, older units get cheaper in relative terms.

[balugajames]

I am pretty sure the following information will help with your concerns about future growth. Not even factoring in Greece/China's problems:

I am happy we got another 40+ highrise. Its all about to burst as I predicted months ago.

Enjoy what we got guys! Have fun with your families and try to finish that bucket list.

Pacific ocean is officially radiated/dead and its only time before its all over and our society finally notices. We will see the impacts in the coming months.

All fisheries from Monterrey -> Alaska are closed.
http://www.thebristolbaytimes.com/article/1527naknek_fishermen_cope_with_slow_opener

Ocean becoming desert
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ocean-i...l-life-die-offs-california-coast/5451836

Sardines/Herring Collapse (Expected huge turnout, but only 2% thus far has been found with leasions, issues.)

http://www.adn.com/article/20150702/feds-return-management-kuskokwim-state-amid-low-salmon-numbers

Largest Toxic Algea bloom in history (Closes crabbing, fishing up/down west coast)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/toxic-algae-bloom-in-pacific-ocean-could-be-largest-ever/

http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/...gae-bloom-domoic-acid-sea-lion/28841659/

(Official talking about expected herring numbers and real findings)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGOj8BVwGyI&feature=youtu.be&t=2272

Jelly fish displaying fish populations by upwards of 90%
http://cpa.ds.npr.org/kuow/audio/2015/05/NEWS_20150512_jelly.mp3

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...y-to-hordes-of-jellyfish-in-puget-sound/

http://sfist.com/2015/07/06/multiple_marine_mammals_beached_mon.php

http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2015/jun/27/whales/

10 Dead Fin Whales found near Kodiak (Rare to see one every few years)
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/06/19/dead-whales-near-kodiak-island-pose-mystery/

http://digest.sialia.com/?rm=message;id=1058825

Millions animals washing ashore (Akin to fallout from Nuclear testing 40 years ago)
http://www.coastlinepilot.com/news/tn-cpt-me-0619-red-crabs-20150618,0,2656953.story

Please help spread the word. Fukashima fallout is here and if you follow the media... NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT. Unlike other events characterized similarly (think Chernobyl) this is an ongoing event. Three Nuclear reactors are still melting out of control. You will read that this is caused by this years strong El Nino or Global warming, which do have some affects, coupled with on going pollution, but don't be fooled!

Great aggregator:
www.enenews.com

Good luck all! What does this have to do with Development you may ask? Don't take it for granted!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I am sick of hearing this, that is absolute nonsense. We have a State f***ing Demographer's Office, we pay them to do EXACTLY what you say nobody could have done. And they have been doing it VERY accurately, I might add.

Wasn't the Office predicting Denver County to grow at a rate of less than 1% YoY through 2020 back 2010? So they were only off by a factor of 2 over the last five years, which means that about 30,000 people the Demographer expected to go elsewhere (Aurora, Douglas County and the other shitburgs) ended up in Denver. Whoops.

The Demographer's Office has been pretty accurate on state-wide growth, but drilling down to local growth patterns is much more problematic.