DENVER | Main Development Thread #6 - Page 341

bunt_q · #**6801** Posted **Dec 21, 2015, 8:47 PM**

I love it. My favorite project. Such a stark reminder how ineffectual our non-auto options still are in Denver.

Denver Dweller · #**6802** Posted **Dec 21, 2015, 9:10 PM**

http://www.businessden.com/2015/12/21/rino-hardware-store-pegged-for-redevelopment/#newsletter

Robert.hampton · #**6803** Posted **Dec 21, 2015, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by transistor

How does building a parking lot make financial sense given the real estate prices in downtown Denver.

I dont know how the financials of parking runs, but the rate for parking downtown seems to be outpacing gains in real estate prices. The crappy surface lot down the street was $3.50 2 years ago and now is at $7 and fills up by 8am every day. Other lots are 100% full on monthly subscribers.

Seems like a nice and easy gig to me.

Stonemans_rowJ · #**6804** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 1:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by transistor

How does building a parking lot make financial sense given the real estate prices in downtown Denver.

Probably because un-improved land is taxed at a much lower rate than a commercial building.

Maybe they will create a parking lot for a few years while they market the land to an apartment developer.

enjo13 · #**6805** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 1:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Probably because un-improved land is taxed at a much lower rate than a commercial building.

Maybe they will create a parking lot for a few years while they market the land to an apartment developer.

Man there's something to fix.

bunt_q · #**6806** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 1:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Probably because un-improved land is taxed at a much lower rate than a commercial building.

Maybe they will create a parking lot for a few years while they market the land to an apartment developer.

It's actually taxed at the same rate, it just has less value.

DenverInfill · #**6807** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 12:40 PM**

More Market Station news:

http://denverinfill.com/blog/2015/12/new-lower-downtown-project-market-station.html

enjo13 · #**6808** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

More Market Station news:

http://denverinfill.com/blog/2015/12/new-lower-downtown-project-market-station.html

I'm more excited about this project than any human should be.

rds70 · #**6809** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 6:03 PM**

Colorado was the 2nd fastest growing state from July 2014 to July 2015 in terms of percentage growth, and 7th in numerical growth:

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-215.html

PLANSIT · #**6810** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rds70

Colorado was the 2nd fastest growing state from July 2014 to July 2015 in terms of percentage growth, and 7th in numerical growth:

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-215.html

Holy crap. That's 25% higher than the previous year. Assuming percentage capture of Denver in previous years, it's probably safe to say that Denver proper grew by 15-20k. Wow.

Denver Dweller · #**6811** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 6:37 PM**

http://m.gazette.com/developers-of-gaylo...itics-question-financing/article/1566227

transistor · #**6812** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://m.gazette.com/developers-of-gaylo...itics-question-financing/article/1566227

This entire project seems dumb as hell. Why do they need something this massive built in the middle of nowhere? How is that part of Aurora related to the Rockies? They should call it the Gaylord Plains Resort and Convention Center.

Why would anybody planning a conference that is big enough to fill that place pick it over the downtown convention center? Every scientific conference I've ever been to is just an excuse to drink in a different city and are always located downtown, primarily so that people have options. This seems like such a bizarre thing to build, with the only exception that it is close to the airport.

However, since the school or the company you work for picks up transportation fees, who cares about the finances of taking a taxi or in the future, a train, downtown?

bunt_q · #**6813** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 8:43 PM**

You've obviously never been to a Gaylord. They are worlds unto themselves... there's a sizable meeting segment that likes that sort of thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by enjo13

I'm more excited about this project than any human should be.

This Market Street Station project and Block 162 would be two huge wins. Hugely impactful.

Next I want Market Street between 18th and 19th.

Stonemans_rowJ · #**6814** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I love it. My favorite project. Such a stark reminder how ineffectual our non-auto options still are in Denver.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and It seems you are failing to acknowledge the great progress Denver has made in non-auto options, but then again, that fits your narrative.

There will always be parking lots, and probably always be surface lots, and that industry will no doubt be profitable long into the future. Many of these lots will be developed though which will give us the best chance of getting some meaningful intra-city transit in the future (through increased densities, etc. etc.)

2015 Commuter Survey
http://www.downtowndenver.com/getting-ar...ip-releases-2015-commuter-survey-results

RyanD · #**6815** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Next I want Market Street between 18th and 19th.

That is one sad, sad piece of land.

EDIT: I never noticed that giant diamond crosswalk on 19th and Market?

transistor · #**6816** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You've obviously never been to a Gaylord. They are worlds unto themselves... there's a sizable meeting segment that likes that sort of thing.

Im going to take a guess: people that use the word "synergy".

enjo13 · #**6817** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by transistor

Im going to take a guess: people that use the word "synergy".

They're basically cheaper versions of Vegas resorts. Kind of a theme park for the white, over 50, polo shirt crowd.

bunt_q · #**6818** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Rome wasn't built in a day, and It seems you are failing to acknowledge the great progress Denver has made in non-auto options, but then again, that fits your narrative.

We haven't made any progress on intra-city transit. What, two bike lanes? We haven't even started building Rome yet. We just started a planning process to start thinking about starting. Your narrative is exactly what's holding us back. File it under "Fastracks is good enough." Your ambivalence and naivete is almost worse than actual opposition. Because while you sit around spouting about all the progress we are supposedly making, it is actually getting harder and more expensive by the day. I think the parking ratios developers are using are evidence enough that I am right on this point. And the more people you bring in who are driving, without any plan to accommodate them, the harder it becomes to implement whatever transit you want to do later. Smart cities plan first. We are totally reactionary. And I can't emphasize this enough, it is because of cheerleaders like you.

The important thing to note in the downtown commuter survey is how we are totally failing with transit for close-in residents. Your segment of people who are most likely to drive are Denver residents, who are too far to walk or bike. In other words, exactly those areas we are busy densifying.

bunt_q · #**6819** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by transistor

Im going to take a guess: people that use the word "synergy".

Quote:

Originally Posted by enjo13

They're basically cheaper versions of Vegas resorts. Kind of a theme park for the white, over 50, polo shirt crowd.

Same crowd. Haha.

Stonemans_rowJ · #**6820** Posted **Dec 22, 2015, 9:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We haven't made any progress on intra-city transit. What, two bike lanes? We haven't even started building Rome yet. We just started a planning process to start thinking about starting. Your narrative is exactly what's holding us back. File it under "Fastracks is good enough." Your ambivalence and naivete is almost worse than actual opposition. Because while you sit around spouting about all the progress we are supposedly making, it is actually getting harder and more expensive by the day. I think the parking ratios developers are using are evidence enough that I am right on this point. And the more people you bring in who are driving, without any plan to accommodate them, the harder it becomes to implement whatever transit you want to do later. Smart cities plan first. We are totally reactionary. And I can't emphasize this enough, it is because of cheerleaders like you.

The important thing to note in the downtown commuter survey is how we are totally failing with transit for close-in residents. Your segment of people who are most likely to drive are Denver residents, who are too far to walk or bike. In other words, exactly those areas we are busy densifying.

Your first post said "non-auto" and now you say "intra-city transit." Sloppy.

Secondly, intra-city transit can be by foot or bike, which density enables, due to distances being decreased and having things like grocery stores nearby.

Some developers are in fact decreasing parking http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_26614927/new-denver-apartment-projects-come-much-less-parking

You don't go from 0-60, or build Rome in a day. It happens organically.

However, talk about reactionary, they (developers) moreso than the city go off of antiquated parking models, no doubt dictated by the pencil pushers, bean counters in underwriting.

The Denver Partnership survey confirms increases in non-auto transport.

We haven't started building "Rome" yet? Dude, get your head out of the sand.