DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[mhays]

Why no awnings? They're useful in both the sun and the rain.

[twister244]

Pablo, those are some amazing pics! I love how you captured 1144, 1401, and four seasons with the sunset, and the subtle orange/purple sunset hues..... love it!

[ejwill04]

Agree, great pics, Pablo!

I haven't been a big fan of The Confluence, but I feel like it's looking much better as the exterior nears completion. These pictures definitely make it stand out, especially the one across the river.

[COS]

How cool would it be to get a slender condo building that shoots up taller than 1144 and Four Seasons right in between them. Defects reform is almost complete...

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by ejwill04

Agree, great pics, Pablo!

I haven't been a big fan of The Confluence, but I feel like it's looking much better as the exterior nears completion. These pictures definitely make it stand out, especially the one across the river.

I agree. My disappointment in The Confluence is not that it's ugly, or even boring, but simply that it fully failed to realize its potential. More glass, different siding materials, could have boosted this from a solid "B" "B+" category into the "A" category.

It is such a signature location, and so visible - a true landmark. An "A" would have been amazing. What we got is still nice though, and there's no doubt it makes a significant positive contribution to the skyline and surrounding urban area. The pictures really capture that.

[CastleScott]

I agree. My disappointment in The Confluence is not that it's ugly, or even boring, but simply that it fully failed to realize its potential. More glass, different siding materials, could have boosted this from a solid "B" "B+" category into the "A" category.

It is such a signature location, and so visible - a true landmark. An "A" would have been amazing. What we got is still nice though, and there's no doubt it makes a significant positive contribution to the skyline and surrounding urban area. The pictures really capture that.

I agree and well said Cherry Creek.

[seventwenty]

Regional news. But relevant for owners, future owners and possible future development trends:

Red-hot real estate market leads to property tax spikes around metro Denver

Originally Posted by Denver Post

Homeowners across metro Denver should brace themselves for notices of property valuation arriving soon in the mail that will weigh heavily on property taxes during the next two years.

The short of it: Property taxes are going to go up, and for many, they’re going way up.

That’s the news from seven metro-area county assessors, who on Tuesday held a news conference to announce spikes in median home property valuations, ranging from about 17 percent for single-family homes in Douglas County to 40 percent for all homes in Adams County.

In those counties — as well as in Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Elbert and Jefferson — property tax increases will vary greatly, depending on factors such as neighborhood popularity, amount of new construction and affordability.

That last group will be among those hit the hardest.

“Neighborhoods that had among the lower property values in 2014 are seeing the largest percentage increases in Denver, though each neighborhood has seen growth,” Denver County Assessor Keith Erffmeyer said at the news conference.

. . .

Illustrating the variations within a county, Jefferson County Assessor Ron Sandstrom measured a median 35.9 percent gain in home values in Edgewater, compared with a 22.3 percent median increase in Westminster, and an 18.1 percent gain in Golden and unincorporated parts of the county.

In Denver’s Sun Valley neighborhood, historically a distressed area, home values rose by a median 70.4 percent, the largest of any city neighborhood. The median values in Athmar Park, Elyria Swansea, Valverde and Villa Park all increased by at least 50 percent in the latest two-year cycle.

On the more expensive end of the housing market, less competition and more new supply helped restrain price increases. Home values in Cherry Creek, for example, were up a median 15.5 percent over two years, tame by Denver standards.

. . .

State property tax administrator JoAnn Groff, who also attended Tuesday’s news conference, said that property values in nine Colorado counties rose a median of 20 percent or more over the past two years. Another 20 had gains between 10 percent and 20 percent, which point to higher property taxes in the future.

But in 35 counties covering large swaths of rural Colorado, property values didn’t muster increases above 10 percent, Groff said. Those parts of the state could see property tax collections drop next year due to a decrease in the residential assessment ratio.

That ratio, multiplied by the actual value, determines “assessed” value, or the share of a home’s value that can be taxed. The legislature is expected to pass a bill to drop that residential assessment ratio from 7.9 percent to 7.2 percent.

A lower ratio would shave nearly 9 percent off property taxes, assuming local levies for schools, fire protection and other services stay the same. Gains along the Front Range are strong enough to overcome that decrease by a wide margin. But that isn’t the case in many rural areas.

Big ole map.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I agree. My disappointment in The Confluence is not that it's ugly, or even boring, but simply that it fully failed to realize its potential. More glass, different siding materials, could have boosted this from a solid "B" "B+" category into the "A" category.

It is such a signature location, and so visible - a true landmark. An "A" would have been amazing. What we got is still nice though, and there's no doubt it makes a significant positive contribution to the skyline and surrounding urban area. The pictures really capture that.

The only thing that disappoints me about it is those cheap, wobbly looking panels. But they only look cheap and wobbly when you're standing like right across the street from it. From a distance it looks fine IMO.

I read that it's going to have some special exterior lighting. I can't wait to see what it looks like lit up at night.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Regional news. But relevant for owners, future owners and possible future development trends:

Red-hot real estate market leads to property tax spikes around metro Denver



Big ole map.

So how does TABOR work with property taxes? Absent taxpayer approval, does it limit the collection of additional taxes, notwithstanding rising values? Or hypothetically, if property values doubled over the next 12 months would local governments double their tax collections without restriction from TABOR?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

So how does TABOR work with property taxes? Absent taxpayer approval, does it limit the collection of additional taxes, notwithstanding rising values? Or hypothetically, if property values doubled over the next 12 months would local governments double their tax collections without restriction from TABOR?

TABOR doesn't impact property tax collection I believe, but the goddamn Gallagher Amendment sure does and will affect how much property taxes do increase.

[bunt_q]

TABOR impacts property taxes the same as any other state/local tax sources. Just that most local governments have de-Bruced by now. Absent that, mill levies would be reduced as local jurisdictions hit their voter approved revenue thresholds. Happens to school districts all the time, which is why you see so many mill levy override votes.

[Scottk]

Big problem with TABOR I see is that most people in Colorado genuinely believe it is a good thing.

"Taxpayers bill of rights? That's great!"


Dude who works in our Grand Junction office actually told me over dinner that he thinks TABOR is a great thing because it prevents the liberal urban areas from spending all of the hard earned taxpayer money that comes from rural areas.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Big problem with TABOR I see is that most people in Colorado genuinely believe it is a good thing.

"Taxpayers bill of rights? That's great!"


Dude who works in our Grand Junction office actually told me over dinner that he thinks TABOR is a great thing because it prevents the liberal urban areas from spending all of the hard earned taxpayer money that comes from rural areas.

In the interest of being a professional, I take it that you didn't mention how the rural areas are the welfare queens of Colorado and that the city-slickers are tired of seeing our hard-earned taxpayer dollars subsidizing their lifestyles?

[CherryCreek]

Here's an interesting map a TCU Professor put together mapping US neighborhoods to educational achievement.


http://personal.tcu.edu/kylewalker/m...6784/-105.0375

For Denver, it's striking seeing the North/South divide. It's even greater than I anticipated.

Also, you can very much see the trend many demographers have talked about for cities like Denver: A thriving city core, "inner ring" suburbs in the state of some decline, having lost their competitive edge, and then outer ring suburbs that rival or exceed the educational attainment of the core city (though in Denver's case, the number of graduate degrees in much of the core of the city is pretty impressive and matches up with any of the even outer core 'burbs).

I remember reading an article a few years back about the declining older suburbs. The author made the point these were often 1950s-70s built up areas, with low quality housing stock and none of the amenities of the urban core (much better architecture, parks, cultural facilities, sports facilities) and those areas were having the greatest difficulty staying competitive. For Denver, that probably includes large parts of Aurora and the old Northern suburbs, and parts of the Western burbs.

It's interesting to consider how things have changed in last 5- 7 years, and how they are changing. Obviously, Denver itself is undergoing massive gentrification which will only accelerate the trends noted in the maps. The southern suburbs - with jobs + quality housing stock will continue to thrive. Select parts of the older suburbs are doing okay too (parts of Arvada comes to mind). Broomfield and Boulder are in their own submarket category and are thriving.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

In the interest of being a professional, I take it that you didn't mention how the rural areas are the welfare queens of Colorado and that the city-slickers are tired of seeing our hard-earned taxpayer dollars subsidizing their lifestyles?

Its so true. And the same is true at the federal level. Not surprisingly, given income rates by states, the mostly-coastal blue states contribute far more to the federal till then the many interior red states.

I like this from Business Insider:

Well, all of this tough budget talk from Republicans got me thinking about the central: who really benefits from government spending? If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you might think it was those blue states, packed with damn hippie socialist liberals, sipping their lattes and providing free abortions for bored, horny teenagers.

The truth? Not so fast, Michele Bachmann.

As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.

Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.



http://www.businessinsider.com/red-s...-2011-8#!IpqnG

I'm not a big fan of the current administration, but the good news is that if all of their tax plans and government cuts were enacted, there will be a massive transfer of wealth from red states to blue states. If we have to live in a Banana Republic, better to live in the Plantation House than out in the fields.

[TakeFive]

Eh, that's not a surprise but I understand the talk show bias. Certainly the higher populated coastal states are more typically blue and so that's a fair criticism but...

Think back a couple of decades and the deep south has always had the most poverty from So Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and even Texas as a bookend to all that O&G wealth, New Mexico and Arizona. Then consider the more sparsely populated farm states and upper tier states from the Dakota's to Montana and Alaska. By necessity they needed more infrastructure support to keep food affordable and flowing to more populated states.

But over the last two decades things have been rapidly changing as industry has migrated to states like So Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. Texas has been on a development binge that has made it the state with the 2nd highest GDP to California. It's the Rust Belt states that have suffered and some of the bluest states suffer from aging infrastructure and high legacy costs of unfunded pensions.

Politics aside it's all really quite fascinating stuff.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Eh, that's not a surprise but I understand the talk show bias. Certainly the higher populated coastal states are more typically blue and so that's a fair criticism but...

Think back a couple of decades and the deep south has always had the most poverty from So Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and even Texas as a bookend to all that O&G wealth, New Mexico and Arizona. Then consider the more sparsely populated farm states and upper tier states from the Dakota's to Montana and Alaska. By necessity they needed more infrastructure support to keep food affordable and flowing to more populated states.

But over the last two decades things have been rapidly changing as industry has migrated to states like So Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. Texas has been on a development binge that has made it the state with the 2nd highest GDP to California. It's the Rust Belt states that have suffered and some of the bluest states suffer from aging infrastructure and high legacy costs of unfunded pensions.

Politics aside it's all really quite fascinating stuff.

All good points, though my thought was not BLUE states = Good, Red States = Bad, or even that massive tax cuts and spending cuts would be uniformly good for Blue States and bad for Red States.

It was more that taxes and spending always have winners and losers and that a blind CUT TAXES! CUT SPENDING! approach to government might end up having impacts that some of those supporters will be shocked by.

There has been a lot of Sunbelt migration of jobs to places like Alabama but I am curious about how much those states have really benefited. The lowest level of educational achievements, per capita income, and the worst health care outcomes remain disproportionately focused in the South, notwithstanding those trends.

Texas is apart from much of the rest of the "south" if one thinks Texas is in the South, but of course Texas starts from a petro economy base that rivals all but the largest oil producing nations in the world. This is a nice place to start from in building a thriving, diverse economy.

As far as Colorado goes, metro Denver and the Front Range may have to continue to do what we did for much of 80s to 2010s - continue to self fund projects that improve our infrastructure to support a thriving economy leaving the rest of the state to live with the choices they make.

[MHC_DEN]

I noticed that some fencing went up around the Tabor II expansion site this week on Monday morning. Has anyone seen that and do you know what's happening there? Could they be getting ready to demo the sidewalk and planters in preparation to excavate?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by MHC_DEN

I noticed that some fencing went up around the Tabor II expansion site this week on Monday morning. Has anyone seen that and do you know what's happening there? Could they be getting ready to demo the sidewalk and planters in preparation to excavate?

No clue. They're probably painting the caps so that it can stay sealed another 30 years.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

No clue. They're probably painting the caps so that it can stay sealed another 30 years.

I wonder what brand they're using?