DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[CONative]

Here are the actual neighborhood meeting minutes on the Stapleton/Amazon topic:
- Forest City Stapleton is working with the City of Denver to submit a proposal to attract Amazon.
- October 19th, proposal will be submitted.

[CONative]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever

As another Stapleton resident, I just laugh when people complain about increased traffic, development, or whatever else is the NIMBY flavor of the week. I just heard someone complaining that the Punch Bowl Stapleton on MLK/Central Park will lead to increased traffic in the neighborhood.

I just ask these people: why did you move to the City (city being the operative word) of Denver then? I feel like a lot of residents believe they live in their own municipality but want the conveniences of living in Denver. It doesn't work that way. Not only that, Forest City has had the master plan available for just about every square inch of Stapleton available since the early 2000s. Nobody moving here should be surprised by anything if they did any research.

That land on that MLK corner has always been planned for high density and even was proposed to be a mid to hi-rise at one time, so that definitely should never have been a surprise to anyone. However, being a Stapleton resident since 2005, I can tell you a lot of the master plan and specific plots/lots have changed over the years.

[LooksLikeForever]

Originally Posted by CONative

That land on that MLK corner has always been planned for high density and even was proposed to be a mid to hi-rise at one time, so that definitely should never have been a surprise to anyone. However, being a Stapleton resident since 2005, I can tell you a lot of the master plan and specific plots/lots have changed over the years.

Fair enough, I guess I'm just mostly surprised by the comments I've heard recently about the Punch Bowl Social as well as the new apartment community at 29th and Roslyn. Those have been slated for development for some time.

[DenverInfill]

I think it's interesting that all of these different locales in the area are "planning on submitting a proposal to Amazon" when the metro/state leaders have made it very clear that there will be a "single coordinated bid" to represent the Denver region, with official blessing from the governor, as unambiguously stated in this article:

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/12...essons-boeing/

Therefore, the Auroras and Stapletons out there may plan on submitting a bid internally in hopes they get picked to be the site chosen to represent the Denver region, but I don't think they will be submitting their proposals directly to Amazon; otherwise, doing so would be a mark against them in the eyes of both Amazon and the region/state leaders as a "rogue bid."

Key quotes from the article:

"“We are working very closely with our partners at the state and metro regional level to jointly submit a single coordinated, strategic, and intentional response representing the Denver MSA,” said Derek Woodbury, a spokesman for the Denver Office of Economic Development."

"Although Amazon is allowing one proposal per metro area, any communities that go it on their own would lose the backing of the state, limiting what incentives they could provide."

[mhays]

There's some added pressure because of the "only one" request. Nobody knows what they really value beyond the hints in the RFP. So an area with multiple good sites would have to guess. Do they do that based on what they think fits the criteria best, or where they themselves want the growth? Is a regional/state government picking a favorite among developers and municipalities, and how do they do that? If Amazon likes the incentive package but wants a different location in the same city, is that a negotiation?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

There's some added pressure because of the "only one" request. Nobody knows what they really value beyond the hints in the RFP. So an area with multiple good sites would have to guess. Do they do that based on what they think fits the criteria best, or where they themselves want the growth? Is a regional/state government picking a favorite among developers and municipalities, and how do they do that? If Amazon likes the incentive package but wants a different location in the same city, is that a negotiation?

Would you know or have an approximate guess as to how spread out Amazon is in Seattle. Roughly how many SF or what percentage of their footprint do they have at their primary campus facility and how much is spread around the rest of downtown?

I think we're getting too hung up on being site specific. I mean if Amazon comes to town and says "Well, we really like this other area? Does that mean the state is going to say "No banana"? I don't think so.

Presumably downtown is the most logical area but could that extend to Stapleton? Sure, especially if they prefer a campus setting for a part of their footprint.

I did a quick calculation of 10,000 employees occupying 350 SF each and that equates to 3.5 million SF. That's 20% of their estimated buildout over time for a total of 17.5 million SF. It would make sense to put a lot of the space in downtown highrises ofc but who knows what they would prefer in total.

I assume the incentive package and a reading of the "State of Downtown Denver" by the Downtown Denver Partnership as well as your typical promotional package is what they would want to review.

[DenverInfill]

I think they said they want the buildings to be proximate enough to each other to be walkable.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I think they said they want the buildings to be proximate enough to each other to be walkable.

On the surface that's logical. Now let me complicate the issue.

Does that mean Denver would have to identify the sites and guaranteed acquisition prices? is that for just the first 2 million SF or for all of the potential 17 million SF, much of which won't be needed for maybe 10-15 years? Is Amazon willing to pay whatever the land/site owners want? Will Denver seek to condemn sites on Amazon's behalf?

If Amazon really wants to secure a site for all 17 million possible square footage it seems they'd be best served by buying raw land out near Toyota's new HQ in Dallas, for example. I assume even Buckhead would have difficulty meeting that strict of a criteria.

[mhays]

Amazon office density is more like 6 or 7 workers per 1000 sf, or that's the rumor. That compares to a more common average of 5. It used to be 4 was a rule of thumb in the US office market. Of course offices (most companies) have gotten smaller due to the open office concept, flat screens, less paper and filing cabinets, etc.

Regarding where Amazon is currently in Seattle, there's no "main campus" per se....it's more like they have the majority of office space in both South Lake Union and the adjoining Denny Triangle, which is an extension of the CBD. That might be a mile diameter combined, which includes nearly all of their 8,000,000 sf. Add other known projects, and reporters have totaled them as 12,000,000 sf. A little of that is in Downtown Bellevue.

The media have screwed up their percentage of the local market. It's probably about 5% if you include the largest brokerage figure and nudge that up a little for what the brokerages miss. But if you only count commercial Class A space in the center of town, maybe it's more like the 20% often reported.

[twister244]

I think it's safe to say that if Amazon does indeed choose Denver, they are going to want a campus in the downtown area. It's their culture, and it would closely resemble what they have in Seattle. Yes, there are probably neighborhoods coming together balking about how they plan to put a proposal in, but let's be realistic. The city of Denver and state of Colorado are going to have one unified proposal to land Amazon in the heart of Denver. A site in Stapleton, Forest City, Interlocken, or DTC seems out of step with the Amazon culture and what they are looking for.

[mhays]

Sure, if "similar" is what they're going for.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Amazon office density is more like 6 or 7 workers per 1000 sf, or that's the rumor. That compares to a more common average of 5. It used to be 4 was a rule of thumb in the US office market. Of course offices (most companies) have gotten smaller due to the open office concept, flat screens, less paper and filing cabinets, etc.

Regarding where Amazon is currently in Seattle, there's no "main campus" per se....it's more like they have the majority of office space in both South Lake Union and the adjoining Denny Triangle, which is an extension of the CBD. That might be a mile diameter combined, which includes nearly all of their 8,000,000 sf. Add other known projects, and reporters have totaled them as 12,000,000 sf. A little of that is in Downtown Bellevue.

Thanks for the feedback. What I didn't know is whether (various) reported SF per employee numbers were for work space or if it also included allowances for lobbies, conference rooms, lunch rooms, game rooms, workout space etc. Sounds like it includes all the needed allowances?

Doesn't South Lake Union have height restrictions?

I also agree with your point that it may be hard to pigeon hole exactly what they want or will end up choosing for their new HQ. Whatever comparisons are made you know there will be tradeoffs of one thing or another in each city. An urban setting may be most likely but what they ultimately decide is tbd. Atlanta, for example has several areas that could be deemed "urban" depending how one defines that.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever

As another Stapleton resident, I just laugh when people complain about increased traffic, development, or whatever else is the NIMBY flavor of the week. I just heard someone complaining that the Punch Bowl Stapleton on MLK/Central Park will lead to increased traffic in the neighborhood.

I just ask these people: why did you move to the City (city being the operative word) of Denver then? I feel like a lot of residents believe they live in their own municipality but want the conveniences of living in Denver. It doesn't work that way. Not only that, Forest City has had the master plan available for just about every square inch of Stapleton available since the early 2000s. Nobody moving here should be surprised by anything if they did any research.

Exactly! I've lived in Eastbridge for 12 years and was shocked when people were complaining about the town center they finally built. Whining about traffic, whining about the gas station, whining about the parking... it may not be my dream town center, but I'm quite happy that I can now walk to restaurants and a grocery store.

I moved to Stapleton because I liked the "urban" part of "new urbanism". People and traffic are part of that.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I wonder if there is enough open space on the land to the north of the train station? They must might have to build the other two lanes on the CPB bridge lol!

I suppose it would do wonders for my property value in Stapleton. I find it odd that people are complaining about the proposed high density development on the SE corner of CPB and MLK. I mean, there was a sign there saying that "high density" would go there for the past decade

The folks that NIMBY within Stapleton boggle my mind. That's the whole concept of Stapleton...compact and connected. If you don't like mixed-use, higher-density development, you really fudged up picking a neighborhood.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

The folks that NIMBY within Stapleton boggle my mind. That's the whole concept of Stapleton...compact and connected. If you don't like mixed-use, higher-density development, you really fudged up picking a neighborhood.

Yep. I get the feeling that the NIMBYs are a small, but loud voice in Stapleton. Now I see neighbors happily walking to King Soopers, Stanley, etc. But if you wanted to live in some setting where you don't see or interact with neighbors and have to drive to everything, you picked the wrong place.

I'm wondering if Punch Bowl Social lights up the tower when it's done. I believe it's mostly white, so changing colored lights would be nice.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I think it's interesting that all of these different locales in the area are "planning on submitting a proposal to Amazon" when the metro/state leaders have made it very clear that there will be a "single coordinated bid" to represent the Denver region, with official blessing from the governor, as unambiguously stated in this article:

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/12...essons-boeing/

Therefore, the Auroras and Stapletons out there may plan on submitting a bid internally in hopes they get picked to be the site chosen to represent the Denver region, but I don't think they will be submitting their proposals directly to Amazon; otherwise, doing so would be a mark against them in the eyes of both Amazon and the region/state leaders as a "rogue bid."

Key quotes from the article:

"“We are working very closely with our partners at the state and metro regional level to jointly submit a single coordinated, strategic, and intentional response representing the Denver MSA,” said Derek Woodbury, a spokesman for the Denver Office of Economic Development."

"Although Amazon is allowing one proposal per metro area, any communities that go it on their own would lose the backing of the state, limiting what incentives they could provide."

The whole RFP process is a little wacko, as currently described. How do you get firm commitments for land availability in the limited time period available? What if your ideal site "could" become available with months of tough negotiations but the only "definitely" available sites are all crap?

Why does Amazon want local cities deciding what's best for them in a given metro area? What if Denver (or Dallas or Philly) thinks they'd be best at site X and Amazon's real preference is site Y?

I suspect the whole RFP process is a bit of the sham in the sense in that Amazon is using it simply to gin up pressure for maximum incentives. I'm guessing they will likely pick 2 to 4 finalists (which they may already have in mind), further leverage the finalists cities against each other to get additional incentives AND feel free to ignore whatever favored site a city/region/state offers up if they think there is a better available site within a metro.

That's what I would do if I were them - why limit yourself to options that have been selected as a result of political wrangling, horse trading, and local politics if you can go out negotiate something better (after you've locked down the taxpayer incentives).

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I think it's interesting that all of these different locales in the area are "planning on submitting a proposal to Amazon" when the metro/state leaders have made it very clear that there will be a "single coordinated bid" to represent the Denver region, with official blessing from the governor, as unambiguously stated in this article:

I think that announcements such as what Forest City is doing is indeed part of the internal struggle within the Denver region to put together a proposal. Denver is building a proposal based on what they have available, but then has to get buy-in on the metro level (I think the state level support for a metro Denver-centric proposal is a foregone conclusion), and this is where the jockeying occurs. The Denver International Business Center and Stapleton are the only two sites with the City of Denver where you have 100 acres of contiguous property with one land owner that is zoned for a corporate campus function, and only one of those (Stapleton) is next to a transit stop versus transit adjacent (DIBC). So it makes sense that Forest City would partner with Denver to offer their property as it hits a lot of the RFP criteria for a campus-style development to compete with the suburban shit (the Lone Tree's, Aurora's etc.) that will offer up areas.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I think that announcements such as what Forest City is doing is indeed part of the internal struggle within the Denver region to put together a proposal.

The Denver International Business Center and Stapleton are the only two sites with the City of Denver where you have 100 acres of contiguous property with one land owner that is zoned for a corporate campus function, and only one of those (Stapleton) is next to a transit stop versus transit adjacent (DIBC). So it makes sense that Forest City would partner with Denver to offer their property as it hits a lot of the RFP criteria for a campus-style development to compete with the suburban shit (the Lone Tree's, Aurora's etc.) that will offer up areas.

Let's assume that Amazon will have a bevy of lawyers, accountants, administrative overlords etc. which they'd prefer to be downtown. They'll presumably also have a gaggle of software engineers, logistics people and maybe even robotics experts that would be responsible for face-to-face interaction and problem solving to their growing number of Fulfillment Centers. Both Stapleton and downtown could work nicely together and have great appeal. You never know what may end up being a deciding factor until the process is done.

[Ich]

Looks like the CC Safeway is going away

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...e.html?ana=fbk

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Ich

Looks like the CC Safeway is going away

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...e.html?ana=fbk

Interesting. But no mention of plans for the site.

While I'd love to see new development at the mall, I'm sure people living around there aren't happy. It was within walking distance of so many condos and apartments.