DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

I think the committee missed the part where Amazon likes to be downtown, in the urban hub, where transit all comes together. These 3 sites are all awful.

Yeah this must be a joke. Worst. Sites. Ever.

I guess this is why they didnt want to publish the bid.

[DenBronco8]

There were more locations submitted in the bid for Amazon to look at which I'm sure are the downtown central locations.

"Unlike other cities that publicized their pitch, Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation is not releasing the exact details.

But sources said three locations have been heavily marketed in the bid."

There are still about 3 or 4 other locations that were submitted so all hope is not lost yet.

[TakeFive]

Simply Brilliant

How can Denver beat (or at least compete with) the competition?

• Newark, N.J., makes $7 billion pitch for new Amazon headquarters
• An early look at Amazon proposals

Let's start with a more reasonable near-term number of 25,000 employees. How many children will that include? Many overlook and under appreciate the importance of schools. The E-470/So Parker site lies on the border between Cherry Creek Schools and DougCo schools. It doesn't get any better than that but Boulder Co is good too.

How many (tech) companies prefer their own campus? Google, Facebook, Schwab, Toyota etc. etc.

DIA/Smart City seems like a longer shot unless it was a part of a split strategy with downtown/Stapleton.

The Denver edge (over many places) is lower capital costs to Amazon. The 3 sites would provide easy ability to reasonably acquire all the land they'd need over time. Cost of living is moderate and at least it's not Texas.

Obviously downtown is not excluded from consideration.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Maybe someone on the Colorado committee feels the same way I do - that bringing Amazon here will do nothing but further inflate prices in an already-tight housing market and make it even harder for smaller companies to find software developers... Or maybe it's because they've also heard how their corporate work culture is as demanding and toxic as their warehouse work culture. New, great-looking office buildings would be great and all, but I'm not sure they're worth it...

Hate it. All we need for massive new sprawl. Totally opposed to Amazon coming here if that's what we propose.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Simply Brilliant

How can Denver beat (or at least compete with) the competition?

• Newark, N.J., makes $7 billion pitch for new Amazon headquarters
• An early look at Amazon proposals

Let's start with a more reasonable near-term number of 25,000 employees. How many children will that include? Many overlook and under appreciate the importance of schools. The E-470/So Parker site lies on the border between Cherry Creek Schools and DougCo schools. It doesn't get any better than that but Boulder Co is good too.

How many (tech) companies prefer their own campus? Google, Facebook, Schwab, Toyota etc. etc.

DIA/Smart City seems like a longer shot unless it was a part of a split strategy with downtown/Stapleton.

The Denver edge (over many places) is lower capital costs to Amazon. The 3 sites would provide easy ability to reasonably acquire all the land they'd need over time. Cost of living is moderate and at least it's not Texas.

Obviously downtown is not excluded from consideration.

If the end goal of attracting Amazon is to promote sprawl so the incoming tech workers can educate their children in the suburbs, then Amazon shoudl go somewhere else.

If future Amazon workers really think they cant get a good education for their kids in Denver then they should move to the burbs along a light rail line and take the light rail in to Arapahoe Square, Rino, 41st and Fox, Pepsi Center, Gates ETC ETC. You know, all those pretty awesome sites that actually have public transit.

That Parker location is the worst of them all. Lets send another 50,000 workers out on I 25, PAST the tech center with no chance for public transit!

[ddvmke]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Yeah this must be a joke. Worst. Sites. Ever.

I guess this is why they didnt want to publish the bid.

Unless I missed it mentioned in any of the speculation, maybe someone can explain to me why Arapahoe Square and Uptown (and maybe even block 162) weren't pushed harder together considering the vast size of surface parking lots in the area, sites being within a mile of each other, as well as proximity to housing in RiNo/Uptown/Cap Hill/Whittier/Curtis Park/Etc where employees could easily walk or take the bus/LRT to work. It would seem that better fits Amazon's model of integrating offices into an exiting street grid and urban fabric on the edge of downtown where employees are encouraged to walk to lunch/happy hour and support local businesses, as opposed to some secluded campus. I get that it's not all owned by a single developer or ready to develop immediately, but I don't imagine they're looking to develop all at once anyway.

Also, saw this gem come across this morning discussing the generally ugly and unhealthy "luxury" apartments going up in various cities:

[mhays]

Who controls the land in those urban districts? Unless there's some sort of centralized landowner or binding agreement to price things reasonably, how could those sites be viable bids? I suspect that would be a plus for Gates for example, and a negative for others.

[mr1138]

I'm entirely just speculating here, but I think mhayes is probably on to something about the lack of centralized ownership (I'm not sure how you would propose a massive real estate development without control of the land - merely speculating on somebody else's land would surely cause them to raise their asking price - the landowner needs to be a partner on the deal).

I am also suspicious that planners may not feel that city-center sites NEED Amazon to transform them. RiNo and the area around 38th and Blake seem to be headed toward a completely gentrified future as it is. I'm personally not sold that the future of an area such as Arapahoe Square needs to be re-tooled in Amazon's favor, simply so we can say we got Amazon. The private development sector is already circling those areas like vultures.

Something like the Gate's site or Stapleton, where a large block of contiguous land has a more unclear urban future, would make more sense. An Amazon campus could kick-start and shape development at a site like that.

That said, I'll add to the chorus that these sites are TERRIBLE. Why not at least pick a suburban location with potential for TOD? Even Peoria would be better than the crappy sites on this list. I mean a Broomfield site that isn't even walking distance to the Flatiron Flyer? And PARKER southeast of the metro beltway? really?

[jimijam35]

i agree trbl 3 choice - if this is true- my sites would be pepsi center lot , gates, and how about all those empty parking lots around the trangle- colfax/glenarm/15th st.

[DenverInfill]

Chill, people. The state has said they are submitting eight sites with no prioritization and I assure you several are definitely in the downtown/urban core. These suburban sites may be three of the eight, who knows. It was important that we have a single proposal so it includes a number of suburban sites for better or for worse--that's for Amazon to decide.

[Ich]

I think the Parker idea is aweful... especially as difficult as it is to develop anything in that town. People there were freaking out about us building a four story apartment building there and freaked over our placement of flags. Can’t imagine how they would react if Amazon set up shop. I think Amazon maybe open to something less urban as I think they are learning from their Seattle site. While those moving from SF may see Seattle as cheaper most the country does not. Housing prices continue to increase because there is little developable land near their HQ in Seattle compare to the amount of people they are trying to hire . Traffic is so bad in Seattle that if you want to move to a suburb for cheaper prices then you have to deal with an 2 hour plus commute. So I think that is becoming an issue when you are trying to recruit people from places like the mid west and south where everything is substantially cheaper. I know this because I always heard people complain about it while I was trying to rent them a 2 bedroom for 4000 or a one bedroom for 2900 a month. So the idea of somewhere near a city center without being directly in it allowing for easier and cheaper growth isn’t a bad idea. I think Parker and DIA is a bit extreme (especially DIA as they school aren’t even that great out there from what I’ve heard) but the broadway and Stapleton would make sense. As for Arapahoe Square I think it could work if you were able to get the landowners to agree to sell which I’m sure many would for Amazon. But if Denver’s pitch is heavily based on quality of life then a cookie cutter suburban site doesn’t make sense. Especially if we are so confident (overly confident imo), that our lifestyle will make up for the lack of financial incentives.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by mhays

Who controls the land in those urban districts? Unless there's some sort of centralized landowner or binding agreement to price things reasonably, how could those sites be viable bids? I suspect that would be a plus for Gates for example, and a negative for others.

We should of put in a bid using all of Buzz Gellers parking lots so they can finally get developed.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Chill, people. The state has said they are submitting eight sites with no prioritization and I assure you several are definitely in the downtown/urban core. These suburban sites may be three of the eight, who knows. It was important that we have a single proposal so it includes a number of suburban sites for better or for worse--that's for Amazon to decide.

And the voice of reason comes in to calm us urbanites.....

[PLANSIT]

If anyone thinks these 3 sites are the "pitch", then they haven't been paying attention. Relax.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Maybe someone on the Colorado committee feels the same way I do - that bringing Amazon here will do nothing but further inflate prices in an already-tight housing market and make it even harder for smaller companies to find software developers... Or maybe it's because they've also heard how their corporate work culture is as demanding and toxic as their warehouse work culture. New, great-looking office buildings would be great and all, but I'm not sure they're worth it...

Ha, I wouldn't mind an insider saboteur. Not that my opinion matters to the state of Colorado, but I would rather Amazon go somewhere else as well. While Amazon may create 50,000 jobs in Denver, I think the increased COL, decreased QOL, and change in culture they would bring may very well stifle 50,000 other jobs that could be created by smaller and/or local companies. Jobs which would be created without taxpayer-funded corporate subsidies. I don't like what Seattle has become in the Amazon era, and no skyscraper or infill is worth replicating that in Denver.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

We should of put in a bid using all of Buzz Gellers parking lots so they can finally get developed.

He doesn't even half 10 acres let alone anything contiguous. Total non-starter. Same applies for RiNo, Arapahoe Square, the CBD or any other urbanista wet dream. Gates and Pepsi Center are probably the two urban bids. Other Denver proper bids are probably in Stapleton and at Pena Station (the DIBC). Everything else is a shitty suburban one- though I'm shocked that the Lone Tree Station development hasn't popped up.

Only way Arapaho Square would happen is if Denver implemented the greatest eminent domain grab in history. That would be something to watch.

[mhays]

Neighborhood politics will be another concern. Imagine every/any neighborhood...what would they say to 8,000,000 sf of offices for 50,000 people? So now the City (or whoever) is laying out the red carpet for something a lot of nimbys don't want.

Any uncertainty seems like a killer for a site. Even a viable plan, if there's a chance that development capacity might not be there...

The exceptions would be where this level of growth is already expected and vetted. Toronto's waterfront, at least one location in central Chicago, and probably a lot of places with rail stops near freeway interchanges come to mind. I don't recall details about the Gates site but it's the type of situation I'm talking about, if it and adjacent properties can get to 8,000,000 sf. Edit: And the Can.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

He doesn't even half 10 acres let alone anything contiguous. Total non-starter. Same applies for RiNo, Arapahoe Square, the CBD or any other urbanista wet dream. Gates and Pepsi Center are probably the two urban bids. Other Denver proper bids are probably in Stapleton and at Pena Station (the DIBC). Everything else is a shitty suburban one- though I'm shocked that the Lone Tree Station development hasn't popped up.

Only way Arapaho Square would happen is if Denver implemented the greatest eminent domain grab in history. That would be something to watch.

I wasn't serious about Buzz. Just would like to see something actually happen on one of his lots, rather than listening to scummy Miami and NYC developers pump their BS plans.


Fox North it is, then.

Really though I'm surprised it hasnt been mentioned more? About 30 seconds to Union Station and airport transfer. Shovel ready project. One owner. Great opportunities for re purposing the printing plant. And the irony of amazon moving into a printing plant is great.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Really though I'm surprised it hasnt been mentioned more? About 30 seconds to Union Station and airport transfer. Shovel ready project. One owner. Great opportunities for re purposing the printing plant. And the irony of amazon moving into a printing plant is great.

Isn't Fox North proposed by a scummy Denver developer with even less of a track record than the New York and Miami developers you're knocking? That's probably why it hasn't gotten a ton of mention. Though the press plant repurposing would be very cool indeed.

[FunctionForm]

Originally Posted by rds70

Two cranes up at the Gables Jackson Street project in Cherry Creek East:

I really do hate to be negative, but what a lousy urban experience that is.