DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by corey

I was going to suggest that Denver needs more historic districts, but I figured everyone would come down on me for that idea also. So I said fuck it and didn't bother.

I'm all down for preserving multi-family density, and old bones. But, single family homes with not much historical history minus being old? I don't see them as really contributing to the outer neighborhoods. Don't need to save EVERY SINGLE home. A few here and there i.e Clement's Historic District, would be fine.

But... It can be done on a larger scale. Let's use another one of my favorite city examples: Los Angeles. Mmmmm they sure have some good, tasty historic districts both single family and high-density.


IMG_5920 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


IMG_5931 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


IMG_6140 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


IMG_6139 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr

[Scottk]

King soopers at union station was open and that shit was popping.

Hookers and blow everywhere.


I had a ham and Swiss baguette. 8/10.

The ratio of meat to bread was a bit off

[Cirrus]

A real downtown grocer? Hey, that's great.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by corey

I was going to suggest that Denver needs more historic districts, but I figured everyone would come down on me for that idea also. So I said fuck it and didn't bother.

Well, good, because you'd be wrong. We've already preserved most every area worth preserving; we can't save every individual building that happens to be old. You have to leave somewhere to build additional housing in a city that's adding over 10,000 new souls per year. Perhaps you think the unaffordability of San Francisco is something we should all aspire to, but I do not.

[DenvertoLA]

Do you guys know if there are there any development plans for where that old warehouse was near the Broadway station was? Seems like a prime spot.

[TakeFive]

Easy Like Sunday Morning

Courtesy of The Greenway Foundation

"Please Join the Greenway Foundation for two upcoming FUNDRAISING events


In addition to RyanD's recent photo extravaganza, Justin at Denver Urban Review has posted photos from his September construction update. You really get a good look at all the buildings that are under construction and there's quite a lot.

Affordability
August 28 John Rebchook posted a good discussion on whether Denver's boom will go bust on his Denver Real Estate Watch blog.

So long as demand continues to grow for downtown living, developers will continue to build. We also know that apartment owners could do just fine with lowered rents. This argues for still plenty of room for more new apartments. At some point the demand for downtown at the given rental rates will diminish.

So long as downtown remains a gravy train, developers like Alliance Res., Mill Creek, Trammell Crow, AMLI etc. will continue to build downtown. But most of these developers are also capable of building suburban complexes or TOD as well. I don't have the slightest doubt that soon enough there will be plenty of demand for less expensive apartments outside of downtown.

Soon enough the construction defects mess will be corrected and condos will be built again (in larger numbers).

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RyanD

I'm all down for preserving multi-family density, and old bones. But, single family homes with not much historical history minus being old? I don't see them as really contributing to the outer neighborhoods. Don't need to save EVERY SINGLE home. A few here and there i.e Clement's Historic District, would be fine.

But... It can be done on a larger scale. Let's use another one of my favorite city examples: Los Angeles. Mmmmm they sure have some good, tasty historic districts both single family and high-density.


IMG_6140 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr


IMG_6139 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr

If that isn't enough to make you want to preserve... then I just dunno. But true that doesn't mean every single older home.

Originally Posted by corey

I am selling my house and getting a condo or townhouse instead because I am f'ing tired of keeping up a stupid yard. I'm finding nice condos along Cherry Creek in Denver south of Leetsdale for less than $200,000.

Biking along the Creek in that area in Spring and Fall is sooo awesome.
Congrats on surviving.

Denver remains tech job hub, but momentum may be slowing
Sep 4, 2015 Greg Avery Denver Business Journal

The article does point out that growth is still positive but the trend is changing. It also points out the good organic growth. The numbers to keep an eye on are net in-migration while also remembering that they lag real time data.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

If that isn't enough to make you want to preserve... then I just dunno. But true that doesn't mean every single older home.

You realize that wasn't Denver, right?

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28761623/townhome-construction-ramping-up-denver

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You realize that wasn't Denver, right?

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28761623/townhome-construction-ramping-up-denver

Interesting tidbit at the end of the article:

But he has his eyes on catching an even bigger wave that he sees coming: condos.

Insurers are getting more comfortable with the quality-control checks and other practices needed to head off defects, and premiums are dropping finally, he said.

Financing for condo construction also is loosening up, and Denver-area rents are rising to the point that not buying will prove costly.

"We will get a huge condo boom," he said

[TakeFive]

BG918... That's very interesting... and good to see. I like townhomes or row homes.

It also shows where those wanting to build a sound product can take reasonable steps that make insurers much more comfortable. That sounds like a win-win proposition to me.

I'm sure that bunt can explain how much harder it is to sue with townhomes than condo's though. Plus the "reward" in suing small projects is minimal for lawyers looking for a bigger payday. Still it hints at some ability to foster quality construction and reasonable consumer protection too. In fact I thought last years proposed legislation could do just that.

The current defects dilemma is untenable and still needs a better fix. I've also been consistent in not wanting clap trap buildings and shoddy developments. That a middle ground may be found is encouraging.

[DenverPoke]

Originally Posted by BG918

Interesting tidbit at the end of the article:

That was my takeaway from the article too. A condo boom is certainly needed, whether it actually happens...I remain skeptical. Fingers crossed.

[rml213]

If you're looking for condos in or near downtown, I'd say to just wait it out for 12-18 months. I know for certain that at least 4 buildings being built were designed to turn into condos right when the city/county finally does what they need to do. The pressure is mounting, they know it, we all know it. It'll happen.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I'm sure that bunt can explain how much harder it is to sue with townhomes than condo's though. Plus the "reward" in suing small projects is minimal for lawyers looking for a bigger payday. Still it hints at some ability to foster quality construction and reasonable consumer protection too. In fact I thought last years proposed legislation could do just that.

It's not about the size of the project, it's about the presence of an association. The association enables you to sue on behalf of all owners, whether they want to join or not, basically. More people means more money.

Most folks don't realize that "condominium" is itself a legal term. To "condominiumize" is the mechanism for breaking up ownership between multiple parties on a single piece of ground. Townhomes work because they each have their own piece of real estate. There are any number of (all imperfect) ways to deal with common spaces in these projects without having an association - most by creative contracting. I jokingly call them hippy contracts - shared responsibility for maintenance costs, etc. - but they're actually scarier than that, as most give each owner the right to levy costs on their neighbors for maintenance costs when that person individually determines, for example, it's time to replace the shared drive on the alley (with no voting mechanism generally - that would be an association, after all). Expect a wave of legal disputes among neighbors arising out of this generation of association-free townhome projects in a few years. But that's not the developer's problem, so projects can get done.

Anyways, back to the point, under Colorado law at present, the only way to truly condominiumize and deal with "vertical" common spaces is with a statutory condominium association (also the vehicle for defects lawsuits). I toyed with ways to condominiumize without an association - looked at three dimensional party wall agreements - workable on a very small project but not scalable - also the formation of a special purpose entity to undertake the association's duties publicly. Nothing really worked.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by rml213

If you're looking for condos in or near downtown, I'd say to just wait it out for 12-18 months. I know for certain that at least 4 buildings being built were designed to turn into condos right when the city/county finally does what they need to do. The pressure is mounting, they know it, we all know it. It'll happen.

Which part of town? Lodo? Golden Triangle? Uptown?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Anyways, back to the point, under Colorado law at present, the only way to truly condominiumize and deal with "vertical" common spaces is with a statutory condominium association (also the vehicle for defects lawsuits).

Thanks for the interesting clarification.

Originally Posted by rml213

If you're looking for condos in or near downtown, I'd say to just wait it out for 12-18 months. I know for certain that at least 4 buildings being built were designed to turn into condos right when the city/county finally does what they need to do. The pressure is mounting, they know it, we all know it. It'll happen.

Sadly I suspect the only real solution is a legislative one. What (larger) developer wants to be the test case as to whether local ordinances supersede state law and already adjudicated cases that could take a few years of your life to decide? I still hold a fantasy that Dems will acquiesce next year and take the current proposal which may be a lot better than what might otherwise end up getting passed later.

Currently being built? Projects like Joule, Moto, Eviva Cherokee, Pivot Denver or The Confluence come to mind. Either of Shea Properties proposed projects - on York Street and 17th Street - would work.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

What (larger) developer wants to be the test case as to whether local ordinances supersede state law and already adjudicated cases that could take a few years of your life to decide? I still hold a fantasy that Dems will acquiesce next year and take the current proposal which may be a lot better than what might otherwise end up getting passed later.

Maybe, maybe not. It could take the form of a challenge to the ordinance, which means no individual developer would have to defend the case; the various cities would have to do that. Now right off the bat, you've got an association (or interest group representing them) challenging a deep-pocketed city. And cities, particularly larger ones, will always appeal the overturning of an ordinance. And you might have two or three of the largest cities involved. So you've got 2-3 years probably before any final judicial determination overturning an ordinance, then a subsequent suit to actually challenge the specific project declaration. Perhaps those two happen in the same suit - that's what a developer would be worried about. But the cities will still be fighting the fight for you. And now you're halfway to the statute of limitations on defects anyways. Plus you've got high profile lawsuits, and three legislative sessions in between, for lawmakers to mull legislation to address the concern, and not risk having the Supreme Court permanently strip the legislature of its arguably exclusive authority to deal with defects. If I'm a savvy developer, I like my chances of my declaration surviving, even if I don't necessarily trust that the ordinances will be upheld.

[TakeFive]

bunt... Obviously the easiest and best solution is a legislative one then.


This is Interesting... Eric Jay Toll in today's PBJ.

In less than a month, Chandler has scored a second specialty pharmaceutical company.

DaVita Rx, a full-service, specialty pharmacy for patients with complex conditions told the Phoenix Business Journal today that it plans to open a new 76,000-square-foot, 550-employee facility...

Apparently not a Denver loss although the name jumped out at me. Davita Rx is a division of DaVita.

The San Bruno, California-based company joins CVS Health, which announced a... 700-employee specialty pharmacy in the Price Corridor Aug. 21

The company also considered Columbus, Ohio; Memphis, Tennessee; Las Vegas and Los Angeles for the expansion and new division.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

bunt... Obviously the easiest and best solution is a legislative one then.

Well yes, clearly. But this is America, when have we ever taken the easiest path? 90% of what the Supreme Court does on any given day could've been more easily handled through legislation.