DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[AHS1983]

Originally Posted by AHS1983

If GSA plans come to fruition, how much space in Denver metro could come onto the market?

Looking over the list, I see some that could be sold off.

The GSA has released it's "Non-core property list"

The Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building is notable, and there's quite a few in the DFC in Lakewood.

[AHS1983]

Originally Posted by AHS1983

The GSA has released it's "Non-core property list"

The Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building is notable, and there's quite a few in the DFC in Lakewood.

I used the DFC map and highlighted the buildings in the list with blue circles:

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by AHS1983

The GSA has released it's "Non-core property list"

The Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building is notable, and there's quite a few in the DFC in Lakewood.

For the Chavez building, the City of Denver seems like a likely acquirer given it's proximity to the other city offices and relatively recent remodel. Plus there's a need for additional parking for the court facilities.

Disposing of building on the the Fed Center seems far harder, those aren't decent assets nor is the location on the land necessarily ideal.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

For the Chavez building, the City of Denver seems like a likely acquirer given it's proximity to the other city offices and relatively recent remodel. Plus there's a need for additional parking for the court facilities.

Disposing of building on the the Fed Center seems far harder, those aren't decent assets nor is the location on the land necessarily ideal.

Had the feds let go of the federal center during any point before 12/31/2022, they could have made a fortune on federal center property. If Lakewood was smart, and I'm not suggesting they are, they would zone this for 30 story mixed-use density. It would fuel property taxes like Lakewood has never seen in an area that already has good commercial/retail presence and has seen some dense low-rise infill along Union. Imagine Belmarx100 - I honestly think it would/could rival Kroenke's efforts at River Mile - lots of people can't stand Denver anymore and if they're closer to the mountains, that's a pretty compelling reason.

[AHS1983]

However, as of this morning, the entire GSA list has been retracted.

Whatever...

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Had the feds let go of the federal center during any point before 12/31/2022, they could have made a fortune on federal center property. If Lakewood was smart, and I'm not suggesting they are, they would zone this for 30 story mixed-use density. It would fuel property taxes like Lakewood has never seen in an area that already has good commercial/retail presence and has seen some dense low-rise infill along Union. Imagine Belmarx100 - I honestly think it would/could rival Kroenke's efforts at River Mile - lots of people can't stand Denver anymore and if they're closer to the mountains, that's a pretty compelling reason.

That's the most rose-colored take on Lakewood development I've every heard. You'd be lucky to see Lakewood rezone the Federal Center for six stories of multi-use development- just think about the drama that Parcel 1 had over the past decade before Lincoln Properties finally purchased it.

Heck, Lakewood residents are more likely to want to make it a park versus any kind of built environment.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by AHS1983

However, as of this morning, the entire GSA list has been retracted.

Whatever...

https://apnews.com/article/gsa-federal-buildings-doge-fbi-doj-aa123e9c3b12e38c8fa511c2a727f880

NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration on Tuesday published a list of more than 440 federal properties it had identified to close or sell, including the FBI headquarters and the main Department of Justice building, after deeming them “not core to government operations.”

Hours later, however, the administration issued a revised list with only 320 entries — none in Washington, D.C. And by Wednesday morning, the list was gone entirely. “Non-core property list (Coming soon)” the page read.

[mhays]

Who could've predicted a disorganized shitshow?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Who could've predicted a disorganized shitshow?

You put your right foot in
You take your right foot out
You put your right foot in
And you shake it all about
You do the Hokey Pokey and you turn yourself around
That's what it's all about

[AHS1983]

Originally Posted by mhays

Who could've predicted a disorganized shitshow?

Whiplash is a tactic, I guess.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

For the Chavez building, the City of Denver seems like a likely acquirer given it's proximity to the other city offices and relatively recent remodel. Plus there's a need for additional parking for the court facilities.

I'll have to mention this to "Linda" who worked in that building ~ 30 years ago.

Originally Posted by laniroj

Had the feds let go of the federal center during any point before 12/31/2022, they could have made a fortune on federal center property. If Lakewood was smart, and I'm not suggesting they are...

Indeed, when Lakewood comes out of their coma they should also consider upzoning the residential area just to the south of the Federal Center Station which is one of the nicest light rail stations in the system.

Although it's not, the Federal Center Station acts like an "end of line" station for those coming down out of the mountains or up from the south. It's also a bus hub.

[TakeFive]

Thinking positively

Originally Posted by mhays

Who could've predicted a disorganized shitshow?

Residential Associations Give Government A 32-Item List Of How To Fix Housing Regulations
March 04, 2025 by Kayla Carmicheal, Deputy Newsletter Editor

The National Multifamily Housing Council and National Apartment Association have been telling the federal government for years that regulation is making housing development too difficult and too expensive. The associations sent a letter to the White House Tuesday asking the government to review 32 federal rules, regulations and programs at 10 agencies to make housing production easier.

Regulation imposed by the government accounts for 40.6% of multifamily building costs, according to a report from the NMHC and National Association of Home Builders, and NAHB found regulations make up 24% of the price of a new single-family home build. "Significant increases in insurance costs, sales and property taxes, payroll costs and other expenses have hampered our ability to deliver the housing America needs," the letter states.

"People' don't stop to think that the rising costs of housing construction begets higher costs for insurance, taxes etc.

BTW, this wouldn't prohibit local governments from adding all manner of rules and regulations but I prefer this being handled at the state and/or city level rather than a one-size-fits-all at the Federal level.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That's the most rose-colored take on Lakewood development I've every heard. You'd be lucky to see Lakewood rezone the Federal Center for six stories of multi-use development- just think about the drama that Parcel 1 had over the past decade before Lincoln Properties finally purchased it.

Heck, Lakewood residents are more likely to want to make it a park versus any kind of built environment.

LOL - Yeah I don't disagree with you at all. I'm bullish on the location of the property not the municipality in which it sits! Proximity to the mountains is an amenity that cannot be overrated. Add in the plethora of large parks and park systems in this area and the fact it has relatively high density adjacent to it and it's a pretty compelling site. If only we had big developers in Colorado to tackle something like this - I'm thinking like a Howard Hughes type company. I've always wondered why Colorado seemingly only has such smaller project-focused developers and not the big community developers. Everywhere around the west you see these big companies doing huge investments; they proliferate in Texas, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington...but not here. Makes no sense.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...BTW, this wouldn't prohibit local governments from adding all manner of rules and regulations but I prefer this being handled at the state and/or city level rather than a one-size-fits-all at the Federal level.

I hear this argument all the time, and do spend some time politicking at the state capitol and in local government where this line of thinking is incredibly prevalent. Honestly, I don't understand why people continue to have this opinion. The professionals who deliver housing across the country all scream at the top of their lungs what's preventing them from delivering more housing (and real estate of all types). The data on housing costs is regularly measured, believable, and undeniable. The #1 reason why housing costs are so expensive is local government regulation. Why do people want to continue down this proven (terrible) path?

If your response is (an opinion) that a one size fits all approach doesn't work then in the same sentence you are REQUIRED to say the local government approach doesn't work either because there really aren't any facts to refute what result the local government approach has yielded.

Let me put it this way. From the 1920's to the mid 1980's, local regulations were broad guardrails. Beginning late 1980's, regulations have morphed from broad guardrails to something more like a rough cut path through the middle of the unexplored Amazon rainforest without a mosquito net to protect you from certain death. I do this all day, every single day. Where's the "follow the science" argument in support of the people who do this day in and day out decade after decade? We don't need governments telling us we have to allow people to have dogs in private property. We don't need them to tell us how much stone or how many colors our buildings need to be. We don't need them telling us we have to increase our electrical budget 5% to plan for everyone to have an electric car. We don't need government collecting public art fees for public art that never gets installed. We don't need the government illegally forcing us to give them property for parks without compensation. We don't need government pushing neglected system maintenance and upgrade costs onto private development because they've neglected their infrastructure for 50 years. We don't need local and state government meddling in generally accepted building codes with dozens of pet-project or reactionary amendments that drive an incredible amount of unnecessary building cost. It's so obvious to those of us who do this for a living what the problems are, but people (like you) just don't seem to believe us and seem to be ok with the status quo which is having a DISASTROUS affect on the American middle and lower economic classes. I do not understand this complacency.

The main issue I see with local government concern is job protection. If we were to take much of the regulation burden out of local government, that's a WHOLE LOTTA PEOPLE who Musk would be firing - they're scared. Imagine if all those people went from restricting development to contributing to it? It's a vision of a country that's much more appealing to me than the proven losing method we've been pursuing for 40 years.

[TakeFive]

"Talking past each other"

means when two people are seemingly having a conversation but are actually discussing different topics or interpretations of the same topic, without realizing it, leading to misunderstanding and a lack of effective communication; essentially, they are not truly connecting on the same level despite speaking at the same time.

Originally Posted by laniroj

The professionals who deliver housing across the country all scream at the top of their lungs what's preventing them from delivering more housing (and real estate of all types). The data on housing costs is regularly measured, believable, and undeniable.

Could I correctly assume that getting rid of Federal regulations that contributes up to 40% of the cost of construction would be a good thing?

By deduction the same would apply at the local level, would it not?

Originally Posted by laniroj

If your response is (an opinion) that a one size fits all approach doesn't work then in the same sentence you are REQUIRED to say the local government approach doesn't work either because there really aren't any facts to refute what result the local government approach has yielded.

I can't agree with this but admittedly I can't point to the information necessary to confirm my supposition. But I'm gonna guess that what works (or doesn't) in the Quad Cities might be both similar and different from what works (or doesn't) in Ogden Utah. Or on a local level what works for Scottsdale isn't the same as what works for Phoenix because each city has/had different objectives.

With respect to the City of Denver, everybody talks about affordability lacking including the Denver City Council. Then the DCC creates all sorts of rules and regs that make housing (and everything else) LESS affordable.

When it comes to making housing more affordable there are many factors. Cost of construction and cost of land are two biggies. Cost of land goes to "desirability" which is one of the key components. Housing in less desirable areas tends to cost less. Eh, amazing. Desirability also keeps demand high; higher demand means higher prices. And so it goes.

[TakeFive]

With Vacancies On The Rise, RiNo Searches For Solutions
March 02, 2025 by Jonathan Rose, Denver

The River North Art District, a magnet for the young, artistic and entrepreneurial, is facing serious distress, with hundreds of thousands of feet of vacant retail and a past year of low absorption. The RiNo Business Improvement District and landlords are working to reverse that trend. But with rising rents, shifting foot traffic and creatives leaving for more affordable markets, the question remains: Will it be enough?

“At a high level, retail likes to be around retail,” Edens Managing Director Thomas Picarsic told Bisnow in an interview. Edens owns several properties in RiNo, including Denver Central Market. Its strategy centers on connectivity, knitting together individual retail spaces to create a sense of place. That means leasing ground-floor spaces and making sure those businesses feed off one another.

Breweries, once a pillar of RiNo’s creative and cultural scene, have been among the hardest hit businesses. Citing rising rents and declining foot traffic, 14er Brewing and Beer Garden closed in late 2024, the latest in a string of brewery closures in the district. Winemaker Infinite Monkey Theorem also closed around the same time.

RiNo will presumably do fine over time because of the popularity overall of the neighborhood. Still the challenges of being able to 'make it' in Denver have become too much for too many.

I do get this growing sense and new data suggests much the same that the consumer is finally rolling over.

Retail in recent years, with last year being a high point has done exceptionally well overall (in the suburbs). I suspect last year was indeed the peak and over the next couple of years will head south. How significant remains to be seen.

[AHS1983]

U.S. Small Business Administration is moving out of Denver because it’s a “sanctuary city” | The Colorado Sun

https://coloradosun.com/2025/03/06/sba-is-moving-out-of-denver-because-its-a-sanctuary-city

[TakeFive]

Two new office leases signed at Denver’s Paradigm River North
March 6, 2025 By Jessica Alvarado Gamez -- Denver Post

Jordon Perlmutter & Co. and Rockefeller Group announced on Wednesday the signing of two new leases at Paradigm River North, a newly constructed eight-story office building in Denver’s RiNo Art District.

Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, a consulting firm that provides a mix of geotechnical, environmental and site/civil engineering services, has signed a lease for approximately 5,307 square feet, while Rockefeller Group, which is a co-developer of the building, has secured nearly 6,000 square feet for its Rocky Mountain Region headquarters.

The two companies are now joining anchor tenant Davis Graham, which moved into its 80,000-square-foot space in December 2024.

Paradigm River North


Photo courtesy Ian Warren

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by AHS1983

U.S. Small Business Administration is moving out of Denver because it’s a “sanctuary city” | The Colorado Sun

https://coloradosun.com/2025/03/06/sba-is-moving-out-of-denver-because-its-a-sanctuary-city

They have a reported 9 employees which couldn't need much space so how much does DOGE save? Millions of $'s they'll claim? Still I won't believe they leave until they do.

[AHS1983]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

They have a reported 9 employees which couldn't need much space so how much does DOGE save? Millions of $'s they'll claim? Still I won't believe they leave until they do.

I agree. There's an awful lot of rubberbanding going on.