DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[awholeparade]

How did this pencil out? http://www.businessden.com/2017/01/26/ca...b1506f0c-f516c9c657-147985757#newsletter

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by awholeparade

How did this pencil out? http://www.businessden.com/2017/01/26/ca...b1506f0c-f516c9c657-147985757#newsletter

“We really took a hard look at the site. We looked at residential, we looked at everything” he said. “But it’s a smaller site. It would be tough to densify it to eight stories because you couldn’t park it.”

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by awholeparade

How did this pencil out?

Using a hand calculator the $40 per rsf would seem to be more than sufficient. I assume they own the land F&C and just need to cover their building nut. If they can stay occupied (most of the time) the return seems quite good. Admittedly that's a real rough estimate.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Is a 5000' lot even big enough for underground parking with ramps and columns? Would have been a good candidate for the small lot exemption

[enjo13]

So this is gonna happen really fast.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/31/orc...ail-plan-greenwood-village-city-council/

[ddvmke]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/31/orc...ail-plan-greenwood-village-city-council/

Why is something like this going through before Broadway Station or Denver Design District plans? Seems like this will exacerbate an already overcrowded commute in the corridor when the former two sites are close enough to allow all types of transportation along multiple corridors.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by ddvmke

Why is something like this going through before Broadway Station or Denver Design District plans? Seems like this will exacerbate an already overcrowded commute in the corridor when the former two sites are close enough to allow all types of transportation along multiple corridors.

Different cities. Different developers. Competition baby, it's the American way. First one to the finish line "wins."

Edited out some unnecessary snarkiness. In all honesty, I think it has always been the vision of the ones who masterminded Denver's transit network that we would see many of these kinds of neighborhoods, and perhaps all at once. Suburban development has never been well coordinated or master planned across the entire metro area. I'm pretty sure the idea was to put the backbone of a transit system in instead of massive investment in new freeways, and hope that developers would take an interest in the station areas. It hasn't put a stop to new cookie-cutter single family neighborhoods, but it does seem to have attracted the interest of office and apartment developers. I have observed very few new garden-style apartment complexes going up in totally auto-dependent locations lately, which can only be a good thing in the long run in my opinion.

I share your desire to see the Alameda and Broadway area built out though, and can't speak to what the hold up is.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by ddvmke

Seems like this will exacerbate an already overcrowded commute in the corridor when the former two sites are close enough to allow all types of transportation along multiple corridors.

Look at the bigger picture. The point is to put this growth next to train station to limit unnecessary (and unnecessarily long) auto trips. By building high density mixed use, you could also potentially allow workers to live within walking distance of their work. The alternative is to build low density at the station and be forced to spread the rest of the potential development to the rest of the metro where there may not be good transit connections, in effect increasing overall metro vehicle miles traveled per capita. The people fighting this are employing all of the standard NIMBY arguments about impact. The problem is they're so worried about how this affects their immediate area of interest, that they negatively impact the entire metro area. The bigger problem is that this isn't isolated to them. Pretty much every major area that's experienced even a small amount of growth is full of these NIMBYs. The end result is when they succeed in stopping development in already established and well serviced areas and push all of that growth to the outskirts. This is fiscally and environmentally unsustainable.

[COS]

^Exactly. First, there's no reason why Orchard should be left under-developed or be developed after any other place. The Denver market is strong enough to deliver all three developments at any time so IMO that's not a valid argument. Second, since the site is at a transit station, there's no reason it should remain a couple one story retail/office buildings. If it was a couple miles to the East or West maybe there's an argument there, but right at the station should be developed with density. You've funded the transit station and modes of transit flowing through it in part for it's economic potential, the potential of the site/area/region becomes choked by leaving it the way it is.

[comoneymaker]

Driving down Havana and saw a Jib ? crane up in the DTC.

[mr1138]

I'd also add that the "transit lifestyle," so to speak, will be greatly enhanced by having real urban neighborhoods at every stop. If downtown is the only destination worth riding transit to, then there is limited utility in living near a station. But if EVERY station has stuff going on, and different things for that matter - workplaces, movie theaters, restaurants, nightlife, ect. - then the entire network becomes more interesting, and everybody has more destinations no matter where they're living.

There may even come a time when people living at Broadway/I-25 ride SOUTH to reach various destinations. Hell, there's already a great movie theater at the Colorado Center that would be closer for them than heading downtown. Just echoing what most here are saying - leaving any of the station areas as a bare-bones suburban office park really takes away from the potential of the whole the system.

[COS]

^When I lived near Nine Mile, I would take the LRT to places other than Downtown during bad traffic times for entertainment (Colorado Center/Landmark esp if drinks were involved) and work purposes. The Federal Center and Arapahoe stops are great examples of office complexes to take LRT to. Obviously those could still be more dense, but LRT gave me a guarantee commute time and saved miles/mx on the car. The argument for Downtown being the main point of density in the system I'll agree with, but I can't understand why our politicians or municipalities would fall for the NIMBY only point of density argument.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

Driving down Havana and saw a Jib ? crane up in the DTC.

There are several of those cranes currently in the DTC:

1 for 5050 Syracuse near I-25/Bellevue (12 story office tower)

www.denverurbanreview.com

2 at Village Center Station next to the new CoBank tower

www.dtcmeridian.com

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by COS

^Exactly. First, there's no reason why Orchard should be left under-developed or be developed after any other place. Second, since the site is at a transit station, there's no reason it should remain a couple one story retail/office buildings.

"Hold on thar, pardner. This is Greenwood Village we're talkin' about. We don't willingly invite any and all riff-raff into our Village." It's the notion of mixed-use, high-density Mult-eye family that has the natives restless.

Tuesday

Controversial Orchard Station plan headed to Greenwood Village City Council
January 31, 2017 By JOE RUBINO - Denver Post

The City of Greenwood Village will hold the final two in a series of neighborhood meetings to address the potential $1.4 billion mixed use project proposed around the Orchard Station light rail stop.

A proposed change to Greenwood Village’s long-term development plan that could clear the way for major construction around the Orchard Station light rail stop has concerned residents, who are urging city leaders to put the issue in the hands of voters.

Recently

Greenwood Village residents divided over proposed redevelopment
JANUARY 18, 2017 BY ASHLEY MICHELS - FOX31 Denver

The area currently is a business park. It is one of the older areas of Greenwood Village with many of the buildings built in the early 1970s.

“Most people would agree it might be ripe for development. The question is, what kind of development?” Mayor Ron Rakowsky said. The community is split down the middle.

They know something needs to be done.

“It’s the office ghetto,” said Frank Ball, who owns one of the office buildings in the proposed redevelopment zone. Ball said he can’t find tenants for his building anymore because the area has gone too far downhill.

“My building is from 1972. I’ve tried to rent it and people look at it and say, sorry,” he said.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by COS

I can't understand why our politicians or municipalities would fall for the NIMBY only point of density argument.

Because NIMBYs actually contact their council people, join neighborhood groups, and actually go to city council meeting. Politicians typically side with prevailing public opinion, and one of the easiest ways to gauge public opinion is by listening to whoever is the most engaged. My college political science professor put American politics in interesting terms. For better or worse, this isn't a democracy. It's a system run by special interests. It's rarely majority rules. Instead, it's the groups that are the most organized and most vocal that get what they want.

If you want city government to stop listening to NIMBYs then you actually have to engage your government, and better yet do it in an organized and very visible way.

[Sam Hill]

Republicans introduce construction-defects reform bill in Legislature -- and it's got a familiar ring

[ddvmke]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Look at the bigger picture. The point is to put this growth next to train station to limit unnecessary (and unnecessarily long) auto trips. By building high density mixed use, you could also potentially allow workers to live within walking distance of their work. The alternative is to build low density at the station and be forced to spread the rest of the potential development to the rest of the metro where there may not be good transit connections, in effect increasing overall metro vehicle miles traveled per capita. The people fighting this are employing all of the standard NIMBY arguments about impact. The problem is they're so worried about how this affects their immediate area of interest, that they negatively impact the entire metro area. The bigger problem is that this isn't isolated to them. Pretty much every major area that's experienced even a small amount of growth is full of these NIMBYs. The end result is when they succeed in stopping development in already established and well serviced areas and push all of that growth to the outskirts. This is fiscally and environmentally unsustainable.

Just want to clarify here that I am in no way opposed to this station being developed to it's maximum potential, so long as it follows a better design than some other of the farther out stations have so far where people still are driving in from all over the place and it only serves as a directly walkable hub to a couple hundred people in the immediately vicinity, which often don't even have sidewalks extending into the surrounding area. As opposed to following more of a "main street" format where there are actually things to do in the area, and people won't need to hop on I-25 anymore.

My question was more surrounding why we are seeing Orchard Station potentially develop sooner than the others mentioned which are closer in and more readily connectable to surrounding neighborhoods and their amenities; and specifically if anyone knew what the hold up is with Broadway and Alameda station areas outside of D4 Urban's issues last year? Seems to be in the city's overall interest to get those bad boys going.

[Denver]

New renderings for the Greystar apartments going up on Speer.

http://zieglercooper.com/parq-on-speer/

[Denver]

New project at Sherman st. and Mississippi next to i-25

Asher Denver:

The Gates District, located just south of Downtown Denver, is where The Asher calls home. The Asher intends to retain the aspects of the Gates District while appealing to the Washington Park neighborhood. This 403-unit apartment is a short distance to the Broadway Lightrail Station and the hip shopping district of South Pearl Street. A total of 7 stories with 2 levels of garage will also provide residents access to 40,000 square feet of courtyard and pool deck and over 15,000 square feet of amenities, including a roof deck with great views of the mountains and Downtown Denver.

http://kephart.com/portfolio/the-asher/