DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by BG918

I remember circa-2014 or so when there was a proposal to turn the University Building into a W Hotel. Surprised Denver still doesn't have one.

Still waiting on Marriott to make a return as well. We were so close with the proposal at 14th & Stout that missed groundbreaking by a few weeks due to that pesky little pandemic in 2020.

[Cirrus]

This is more of a land use issue so I'm putting it here.

Originally Posted by Colorado Public Radio | CPR News

Denver’s train network was built for car commuters. With parking lots empty, RTD thinks housing could help save it
Nathaniel Minor

Converting empty parking lots into housing could be a sustainable way to help build ridership back up, said Chessy Brady, RTD’s transit-oriented development manager.


Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is more of a land use issue so I'm putting it here.

Too bad RTD can't get out of it's own way to lease it's lots. I mean, it's only taken 15+ years to develop the RTD lot in Five points.

The incompetence is strong with this organization.

[Cirrus]

My suspicion is the zoning around RTD stations is frequently not high-density enough to pay for the rider and/or parking replacement you'd want. If the zoning only allows 4 story buildings, that's not going to do it.

He said without really knowing what the zoning at any of these stations actually says.

[Cirrus]

I count 174 cars parked in the Central Park n Ride in the photo accompanying the article.

RTD should have a planning estimate for the number of likely riders they'll get from each unit. I'm going to guess it's something like 0.2 riders/day/unit. Just an educated guess. At that rate, 800 units would result in 160 riders/day.

So assuming my guess is roughly accurate, that's fine as long as they're not eliminating the parking for those 174 cars. But if they are eliminating the parking, then they need a lot more units. Which may or may not be possible under zoning.

That kind of calculation has to happen at every one of these. Easy enough, but they probably don't all pencil out.

[mr1138]

If I recall correctly, wasn't part of the problem for many years that RTD actually had to change its bylaws in order to allow the sale of these parking lots?

I don't think TOD was ever explicitly precluded, but I seem to remember that RTD had organizational rules that both required the majority of their revenue to come from the farebox (meaning they couldn't charge extra at park-n-rides that have higher parking demand), and that also effectively prohibited the sale of land that had been funded as a part of FasTracks. Perhaps somebody else remembers these exact changes better than I do, but I recall in the news that their board approved these structural changes only somewhat recently.

The irony of having a rule that required a certain percentage of revenue to come from the farebox, at the exclusion of TOD land deals, is embedded in Cirrus' point. If 800 units would result in 160 riders/day, and enough structured parking can be provided to account for those 174 existing park-n-ride riders, this actually INCREASES the potential farebox revenue. It was the sort of policy that stood in the way of its own objective, and was leading to a kind of death-spiral. If the goal is actually to increase the revenue coming from fares, it would stand to reason that this should come from increased ridership. Instead, I recall that they used to have to increase fares to make the budget balance, which was hurting ridership instead.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by mr1138

If 800 units would result in 160 riders/day, and enough structured parking can be provided to account for those 174 cars, this actually INCREASES the potential farebox revenue.

Yes but if you're going to have structured parking then the development needs enough units to pay for that amenity and still turn the developer a profit. Totally fine, unless the zoning doesn't allow enough density.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Yes but if you're going to have structured parking then the development needs enough units to pay for that amenity and still turn the developer a profit. Totally fine, unless the zoning doesn't allow enough density.

Agreed - although I think in Denver's case, the zoning isn't always what is the problem (not true in the suburbs).

The Central Park TOD is zoned C-MX-16, which is the same as the zoning around the Alameda light rail station. During this year's discussion of HB24-1313, Denver went on the record as saying their existing zoning capacity around transit would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the bill. This means they think their zoning can meet a target of 40 dwelling units per acre (averaged across all locations 0.5 miles or less from a high-frequency bus or transit route), which I would hope is enough for a developer to turn a profit!! Many suburban TODs (think Arista in Broomfield) aren't even at 20 dwelling units per acre!!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

My suspicion is the zoning around RTD stations is frequently not high-density enough to pay for the rider and/or parking replacement you'd want. If the zoning only allows 4 story buildings, that's not going to do it.

He said without really knowing what the zoning at any of these stations actually says.

As mr1138, zoning isn't a problem in this case, or in Denver proper in general, with the other pilot TOD projects that RTD has tried to pursue. I attribute it more to RTD's lack of a) practical experience in knowing how to value their lots for development, and b) having established processes for transferring, whether via sale or lease, a lot to a developer. Asides from Alameda Station Village (which repurposed an RTD parking lot for a swap with parking spaces elsewhere) and the Sheridan Station Apartments (a parking lease resulting in an actual reduction in parking spaces at an RTD State) there's been no real progress. I also recall as well that RTD did have some restrictions on the re-appropriation of parking lots under FasTracks, so that might have stymied development as well.

[Cirrus]

40 units an acre is not that much! That's like four story apartments, borderline to what could support above ground structured parking or still need surface. It's not sprawl but it's not enough to both profit on its own and subsidize a garage with hundreds of extra spaces for park n ride.

Maybe averaged over a whole big neighborhood with a dozen blocks of development like at Alameda that would be enough density. But not for a single property. Not if you're trying to make this pencil based solely on redeveloping the park n ride itself. That's high-rise territory.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I count 174 cars parked in the Central Park n Ride in the photo accompanying the article.

RTD should have a planning estimate for the number of likely riders they'll get from each unit. I'm going to guess it's something like 0.2 riders/day/unit. Just an educated guess. At that rate, 800 units would result in 160 riders/day.

So assuming my guess is roughly accurate, that's fine as long as they're not eliminating the parking for those 174 cars. But if they are eliminating the parking, then they need a lot more units. Which may or may not be possible under zoning.

That kind of calculation has to happen at every one of these. Easy enough, but they probably don't all pencil out.

It might be something more than 0.2 riders/unit. Public transportation utilization is probably somewhere around 20-25% for a location like this in Denver (yes very low but high compared to our roughly 7% overall public transport utilization). Assuming maybe 1.4 occupants/unit that gets us to roughly 0.3 riders per unit. With simple 5 story zoning, you could probably push a podium building or wrap to around 140 maybe 150 units/acre if the parking were relaxed. RTD owns at least 15 developable acres at Central Park (more if you got rid of solar parking). Without even trying, RTD could sell those lots and see 5 story development of AT MINIMUM 2,100 units. At 0.3 riders/unit, that would equate to at least 630 riders. What RTD will say is, BUT WE HAVE 1,500 PARKING SPACES (WAAAAHHHH). If that location were to go mid-rise (12 stories and below), you could easily see 4-5k units in that small area with 1,500 daily riders, way more than their currently empty parking lots.

[mhays]

RTD could pay for their own garages while allowing developers to develop housing. If housing supply is a major goal, or housing near transit, this is a slam dunk. It's only debatable if the goal is making money for the agency.

Let's say they can get $300/sf for eight acres, eliminating 1,200 surface parking spaces. The land deal is $104,544,000. (Hugely variable of course)

If they need a 1,500-space garage for a 1:1 replacement, that can easily cost more than the land sale. I'd guess this could be in the $120-150,000,000 range. (The Seattle area builds PR garages for $100,000 per space.)

Of course if you can cut the parking by 2/3 it'll be much easier.

[mr1138]

I do agree that 40 dwelling units per acre is not actually that much - although many suburbs were making the case that the new legislation should reduce that target to only 20 dwelling units per acre because they "can't support the infrastructure for 40 dua." I found such a stance ridiculous (cities can always assess impact fees to pay for infrastructure), and evidence that these municipalities don't take transit seriously if they are unwilling to zone for transit-supportive density.

Whether that is enough density for a developer to build structured parking and turn a profit is a different question. But as mhays points out, there are other ways to make this pencil out if RTD is willing to partner on the cost of the garage or find another way to save the developer money (discounted land deal maybe?).

I'm not sure what the net achievable density is under C-MX-16, but this zoning allows for up to a 16-story building, so I think this specific zone district would likely allow density well above the 40 dua target.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mr1138

If I recall correctly, wasn't part of the problem for many years that RTD actually had to change its bylaws in order to allow the sale of these parking lots?

I don't think TOD was ever explicitly precluded, but I seem to remember that RTD had organizational rules that both required the majority of their revenue to come from the farebox (meaning they couldn't charge extra at park-n-rides that have higher parking demand), and that also effectively prohibited the sale of land that had been funded as a part of FasTracks. Perhaps somebody else remembers these exact changes better than I do, but I recall in the news that their board approved these structural changes only somewhat recently.

The irony of having a rule that required a certain percentage of revenue to come from the farebox, at the exclusion of TOD land deals, is embedded in Cirrus' point. If 800 units would result in 160 riders/day, and enough structured parking can be provided to account for those 174 existing park-n-ride riders, this actually INCREASES the potential farebox revenue. It was the sort of policy that stood in the way of its own objective, and was leading to a kind of death-spiral. If the goal is actually to increase the revenue coming from fares, it would stand to reason that this should come from increased ridership. Instead, I recall that they used to have to increase fares to make the budget balance, which was hurting ridership instead.

RTD's policy is generally a 1/1 replacement of parking spaces IF you can make a deal with them (which really isn't possible). RTD doesn't factor in that replacement cost when determining the value of their land so they basically require a crap ton of money for parking and a crap ton of money for land - it's not feasible. This is the major issue. They need to amend their bylaws - really they need an entire structural overhaul. It would honestly be easier to kill RTD and replace it with a new transit agency which is more appropriate because Denver could/should negotiate better service terms in that transition and stick the middle finger up high to all of the suburbs which gut Denver's service standards.

[DenvertoLA]

Could Denver County hold the sales tax it collects for RTD at ransom? Or even threaten to cancel the tax entirely.

If possible, it seems like a power dynamic is not being deployed at the expense of Denver's citizens.

[TakeFive]

"Everything Must Change; Nothing Stays the Same"
(Quincy Jones ft Tommy Körberg with Sarah Dawn Finer)

The young become the old
And mysteries do unfold
'Cause that's the way of time
Nothing and no one goes unchanged

Originally Posted by Cirrus

TakeFive isn't banned for precisely these reasons. The only action taken was to split off the other thread and ask everyone to try and talk development here and other stuff there.

TakeFive has not said a word to me since I shut down the part of the thread where ten different people were calling for me to ban him. He may have left on his own accord after reading those messages. I have no idea. But he is not banned.

This literally is the 1st time I've jumped on the site since I wrote my "passing the torch" comment.

I don't take anything personally. But I've known for some time it would be good for everybody if I took a good long vacation.

For some of the so-called long-timers it may not be as long as many of us. Cirrus sequestering comments is NOT a new thing. I can recall years ago when this site went (way) off topic for ~ three pages of comments. Cirrus would come along and sequester all those comments to a sub-thread.

Life goes on.

Summer Siesta

When the temps hit 110 degrees I relax at home more. I thought about joining Netflix for a month or two but decided 'Nah'. Not to worry, while I'll add some flavor in the short term, I'm committed to being more of a lurker at this point.

There has been a number of developments not mentioned. There's also a number of developing developments that will impact future development - along the lines of stuff laniroj brings up. Not sure how much time... we'll see.

[TakeFive]

It was laniroj who brought up the concept of 15-minute city/neighborhoods. I wasn't so familiar with the notion... but I am now.

There's More To 15-Minute City Conspiracies Than You Think
June 10, 2024 by Amber DaSilva - Jalopnik

It’s urban design that prioritizes people over parking, but it’s also a phrase that’s launched a thousand absurd conspiracy theories. Why are people getting so riled up over urban planning?

BTW, it helps if you have a (good) sense of humor.

Well, they’re not — not really, anyway. The conspiracy theories are less about the realities of 15-minute cities, and more about their imagined position as the first step in a grand UN-backed plan to imprison humanity and depopulate the Earth.

This video is awesome

How do you get from such an innocuous point A to such an absurd plan B? Abigail Thorn of Philosophy Tube has an incredibly cool-sounding explanation: All those conspiracy theorists are caught in a phantasm.

While the video is just short of an hour it is entertaining and well produced.

[TakeFive]

533 luxury apartments open in Jefferson Park. Ten Denver teachers will get free rent
Jun. 28, 2024 By Kyle Harris -- Denverite

Renting at Skyline at Highlands looks like a great life — for those who can afford it. You can rent a studio apartment for a mere $1,899. A one-bedroom starting at $2,049
a month. Two bedrooms start at $3,189.

I have plenty to say about Affordability - if/when I get to it. But lets first celebrate the Grand Opening for a project that was a longtime-coming.

Skyline at Highlands
2501 W 26th Ave

Located in the popular Highlands neighborhood, Skyline offers mountain views, walkable dining and nightlife, and lifestyle-focused amenities make every moment memorable.

Images courtesy Grand Peaks/Skyline at Highlands (via ForRent)

This project had quite the development history. Some may remember the construction equipment including cranes that littered the property for a few years. The 'original' developer
was from NYC; he had previously built projects in the DU area including a nice newer project along So University. This goes back in decade or longer. I recall doing some research
and the guy (I forget his name) was struggling with some newer projects he developed in NYC.

Then along came Grand Peaks (and other partners). I believe a number of units are reserved for Sonder who Grand Peaks works with on other projects.

Anyway it's nice to see this project is now finished.

I found it:

Grand Peaks Brings Sonder to Skyline at Highlands, Offering Short-Term Rentals and Apartment-Style Hotel Stays

DENVER, May 16, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Grand Peaks, a fully integrated real estate investment firm, announced the recent lease of 93 units within their forthcoming luxury
multifamily community, Skyline at Highlands, to Sonder. Sonder is a leader in short-term rentals, offering apartment-style hotel stays in active urban areas. Skyline at Highlands,
located at 2501 W 26th Ave in Denver's LoHi neighborhood, is pre-leasing the remainder of its 533 units now and is poised to become a true mixed-use destination
with hospitality, luxury living and a full suite of amenities opening in June.

The 93-room hotel marks Sonder's fourth project in LoHi and will offer guests a blend of contemporary design and convenience. Guests at the hotel will have access to an array
of the apartment community's luxury amenities, including a resort-style pool and hot tub, a state-of-the-art fitness center and expansive open park spaces.

[TakeFive]

Bye Bye Lennar Multifamily aka Quarterra

KKR Makes $2.1B Apartment Buy
June 26, 2024 By Emily Wishingrad, Bisnow Washington, D.C.

Investment giant KKR has scooped up more than 5,000 apartments across the country in a deal that represents its biggest-ever bet on the sector.

The 5,200 units are spread across several states, including California, Washington, Florida, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina, Colorado and New Jersey.

Note: This sale only involved half of what Lennar put up For Sale.

It comes six months after Quarterra’s parent company, Lennar, announced it was looking to sell more than 11,000 apartment properties that Quarterra operates

Since Colorado was included in this sale I assume it includes all the Denver projects.

Let's celebrate my favorite Lennar/Quarterra project

Citizen West 10
140 West 10th Ave.


Image courtesy Quarterra formally Lennar Multifamily

QUARTERRA NEWS

Quarterra is proud to announce that Citizen West 10 was named the 2023 Multifamily Development of the Year CoStar Impact Award winner in the Denver market. Citizen is among an elite group of winners — chosen for growth, diversification, and ability to overcome unique challenges — selected by a panel of more than 750 industry professionals drawn from each respective market.

Citizen, a high-rise community in Denver’s historic Golden Triangle neighborhood — the city’s hub for art, culture and civic institutions — features 393 luxury apartment homes and townhomes. Residents are just steps from art museums and galleries, history museums and Civic Center Park. With spectacular mountain and city views, Citizen positions residents to take in the best that the city and region have to offer.

[rds70]

Latest concept plan submission for 1800 Welton - Amacon phase 2:

Two 39 story towers, 613 residential units, 91 hotel rooms, 10,000 square feet of retail, 423 feet in height: