Denver Four Seasons Hotel & Private Residences (Part 2)

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

And I'm gonna go ahead and say what what I'm talking about isn't the same thing as what you're talking about.

If you and I were discussing climate change, and I came in with some sort of analysis supporting same-sex marriage, an entirely different issue, and saying it proves my point about climate change, wouldn't you be a little annoyed?

Actually, this is more like if we were having a discussion about global warming, and you failed to realize carbon emissions is a related issue.

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

I direct your attention to: "Fortunately, rent controls presently exist in cities in only four states, and the new control regimes tend to be milder than the WWII-era schemes."

Do you suppose he's talking about Colorado? No, we're not on that list. That's what most of the links you provided were discussing; an NYC-style rent control. I saw NYC and San Francisco, nothing of Denver, and here is Paul Krugman confirming that those programs are rare and limited to four states, which are presumably states that contain cities on the scale of NYC and San Francisco (Probably Illinois and Massachusetts, unless he counts D.C. as a state in this case.)

Only in Paul Krugman's final paragraph does he address, vaguely, the kind of ordinance we see in Denver - zoning schemes designed to create affordable housing, and a bit of analysis on whether or not they actually create affordable housing. He goes on to say that if they are good programs they do add affordable housing to he market, though they do not answer the "underlying" problem as a whole because they somewhat limit the markets capacity to supply large quantities of housing.

Hell, I'll take that, that's the most we had hoped for. We're solving part of the problem though not the whole thing.

So can you trust Paul Krugman, since he has proved himself to not come down 100% on the liberal side, to not be an ideologue, to be friendly to capitalism and market principles - but has voiced the opinion that inclusionary zoning is a partial solution to the problem of housing affordability in urban areas?

Oh and hey - since you indicated it - can I count on your support for all of Paul Krugman's other proposals or ideas?

Well first of all, the passage you're citing wasn't written by Krugman, it was written by Glaeser. There's no way you could interpret Krugman's piece as an endorsement of rent controls (and make no mistake, inclusionary zoning falls under this heading).

Since we are now discussing Glaeser, here is his bottom line (posted earlier):

inclusionary zoning programs represent a tax on new market-rate development, so some market units that would have been delivered in the absence of the tax are not delivered. Hence, the net contribution of these programs in terms of new housing supply is less than the number of “affordable” units delivered. In sum, one cannot expect a policy that effectively taxes developers to produce enough new housing to solve any significant affordability problem.

It really baffles me that you can interpret Glaeser as coming down on the side of inclusive ordinances. I encourage you to give him a read. Here he is explicitly addressing "Inclusionary zoning requires that a share of homes in any new development (typically between 10 and 30 percent) be “affordable.”"

the actual count of new “affordable” units produced tells us little about the overall impact of these policies on housing affordability. Requiring developers to produce affordable units is essentially a tax on market-rate development that should reduce the overall level of building. In general, there will be a number of highly observable affordable units, but there will also be a less visible loss of new units which will make housing less affordable.

If the goal is to reduce the equilibrium price of housing, then it is the overall number of units being produced that matters. A new “tax” on development created by inclusionary zoning rules will reduce that number of units and make housing for the average buyer less affordable. These rules well may end up being counterproductive by making housing less profitable to build.

Returning the subject of Krugman . . . as I recall, it was you who had trouble acknowledging dissenting opinions, not I.

[Pizzuti]

Oh, apologies for misreading your post. You did point out that was Glaeser.

Perhaps its both of us who are only acknowledging what we wan to see, I don't know. All I know is, I'm seeing an economist saying rent controls are ineffective but making a concession or at least remaining ambiguous toward certain ordinances designed to create affordable housing. You're seeing an economist who opposes all regulation, which lends itself to a suggestion that the housing market will take care of the poor if government gets out of the way, no nudges needed. We won't agree on where information leads when we don't agree on what the information was to start out with.

But is one case of disagreement where neither of us went OMG SOCIALISM!! but both of us happened to disagree on the facts. And while I don't see any new ideas (beyond opposing others' ideas if they involve government) about how to make housing more affordable, I do think this was more productive than talking about an issue based on something something something soviet union something something Ayn Rand something Karl Marx something China.

Thanks for the discussion!

[Strange Meat]

By the way, there hasn't been a Denver forum meet in a while, huh?

[DENrising]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

I've been noticing that the Four Seasons already looks spectacular in the early evening with the setting sun glimmering off of its exterior cladding (the parts that are finished). I don't suppose that anyone here with a decent camera (I've only got an Olympus point-and-shoot) has been snapping some twilight pics of our growing skyline?

It's not at sunset, but it looks fabulous.

[FrancoRey]

Gasp! Only two more floors...tear. Couldn't they switch it back to 50 at the last minute? Five more won't hurt the tower design or the foundation...just move up everyone's unit five floors and make the 18-23 levels 400k studio units.

[drifting sun]

Ha! That was one of my latest fantasies, that they would announce that they were going to build to the original concept 750', or better yet, no announcement, just keep on building it and surprise everyone! Well, structural engineers always put a little cushion in their calculations, right? Okay, back to reality. Yeah, I count one or two normal floors to go, and then the terraced decks, then the spire, looking good!

[gabjac31]

I'm exciting to see the new building. It looks like going to work on the top. All will be incredibly gorgeous.

Here is the cam:

http://residences.fourseasons.com/private_residences/denver/

[SnyderBock]

It's getting there...
They have two more floors of residential penthouses to build. Then they will build the fairly thick roof level. Then they have the four lantern decks to build; forming the crown. Then of course they will top it off with the spire.

[sashyenka]

Some evening shots from the end of last week and yesterday:

[AFPhoto Wolf]

[QUOTE=sashyenka;4314338]Some evening shots from the end of last week and yesterday:





What a great shot!!!! THANKS!

[drifting sun]

That's what I'm talking about! Just imagine the finished spire gleaming with the sun hitting it. I must say, that this thing is looking pretty good in real life; I know that many (including me) were disappointed when the concept got "downgraded" and it seemed like the final rendering was but a pale shadow of the original, but I'm happy to have this one as is.

[Pizzuti]

Don't forget the plans to build a second (shorter) tower on site if this first one goes well. I wouldn't expect it to start any time soon, but maybe in 4 years? I wonder if the design would be an exact style match or if they would lose the spire or crown.

[Lorax3000]

i hope it would not be a "mini me" tower. it needs to change with the time, like 2 tabor. man i really wish that would start construction!

[SnyderBock]

The only official reference to the future second tower I have seen, shows something in the 20ish-story range in height, no crown or spire. It was only hotel rooms, with no residential component. I would assume that is the bare bones proposal, from which they may or may not add residential units to--on top. It would only be built if hotel demand justifies it (since it is hotel rooms only). It probably will not get much taller than that, as it would start obscuring views of expensive residential units, in the current tower going up now.

[Pizzuti]

Ok so this is interesting, which I snagged off the website:

"Four Seasons Private Residences Denver is not owned, developed or sold by Four Seasons Hotels Limited or its affiliates (Four Seasons). The developer, Cambridge Property Group LLC, is the real estate broker responsible for the marketing and sales of Four Seasons Private Residences Denver. The marks “FOUR SEASONS,” “FOUR SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS,” any combination thereof and the Tree Design are registered trademarks of Four Seasons Hotels Limited in Canada and U.S.A. and of Four Seasons Hotels (Barbados) Ltd. elsewhere."

So basically the Four Seasons is a hotel company ONLY, and they happened to have struck a deal with a property group to build residences on top of the tower to pay for the project.

That makes me feel better about Four Seasons as a company, which is really just a hotel. It is not necessarily catered to the super-rich, as plenty of people can afford to stay in a nice hotel provided it is just a few times a year.

It's also a great way to pay for your hotel construction, and a possible strategy for developers building offices, rental apartments, hotels or even retail. It has no doubt been employed before, but basically you drop a huge investment in a project that would only slowly accumulate income through rental fees, but to get your investment back in the black as quickly as possible you let people buy the homes you built on top of it and they'll pay all at once. After that it's all profit.

And we allowing mixed uses for any project!

I hope they do build a second tower - but I hope it matches the original design with a similar crown. Twin towers are nice. The Tabor Center can't be a perfect match because there is a twenty year difference between projects; building something new that would be so dated off the bat is a different story. If you have it altered even a little bit, you have to alter it completely, or else its like wearing khaki pants with a beige shirt and looks awful. But hopefully the next Four Seasons hotel tower will be built much sooner, within a reasonable time to be a perfect match, and hopefully it will blend really well with the original.

[Lorax3000]

Twin towers are nice, in certain situations. I just think the current design of the 4s tower would not look good in a smaller hight. (What would it be 23-30 stories?) especially when the original looks amazing. When i imagine the current design in a reduced hight, i think it will come across cheesy.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

its like wearing khaki pants with a beige shirt and looks awful.

I don't follow.

If I remember correctly, the foundation for the 2nd tower could support roughly 30-35 stories. I don't see how an antenna or crown would make any sense on a shorter tower. They would probably match the facade, but I'm predicting something like this:

....|
....|
..[==]
[]_[]_[]
|_____|
|_____|
|_|_|_|...[\
|_|_|_|...[]_[\
|_|_|_|...[]_[]_[\
|_|_|_|...|_____|
|_|_|_|...|_____|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|

[mr1138]

I don't believe Four Seasons is involved with the construction/development of the tower or the residences in any way. I think it was the development company that struck a deal with Four Seasons, not the other way around.

I remember when the proposal first came out as the "Hotel Teatro Tower" because the guy who created and at the time owned Hotel Teatro was/is the developer. At the time it was still just speculation that the attached hotel would indeed be a Four Seasons. I'm sure I don't understand all the intricate details of the contracts that must have been written, but it would appear that Four Seasons hotels is simply purchasing the first 16 floors of the building from the developer much as the residents will purchase their condos from him. I don't think Four Seasons as a hotel chain cares too much about the condos (except for the fact that they will profit by providing the residents hotel services over the years), and I don't think it factors into how they pay for the hotel. I'm pretty sure it is just the developer who profits from the condo sales.

[cadetwhite]

Yeah, you're pretty much right. It's an independent developer who originally restored the hotel teatro building in hopes of putting a 4 seasons in it. When he realized the old building didn't have all the needed features he decided that a separate tower should be built with included residential.

The story of the tower and its conception (as well as other cool info) can be found here http://www.1111towerinsider.com/

[Lorax3000]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I don't follow.

If I remember correctly, the foundation for the 2nd tower could support roughly 30-35 stories. I don't see how an antenna or crown would make any sense on a shorter tower. They would probably match the facade, but I'm predicting something like this:

....|
....|
..[==]
[]_[]_[]
|_____|
|_____|
|_|_|_|...[\
|_|_|_|...[]_[\
|_|_|_|...[]_[]_[\
|_|_|_|...|_____|
|_|_|_|...|_____|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|
|_|_|_|...|_|_|_|

If the second tower is going to be 30-35 stories of hotel rooms, do you think they will transform the hotel rooms in tower one into apartments?