DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Why not? If there is a demand in these neighborhoods and keeps them competitive in terms of unit attractiveness why shouldn't self-storage units be located in proximity to their customer base in spite of being auto-oriented? Grocery stores in Cap Hill are similarly auto-oriented- should we disallow their use simply because most people drive to them?

That's a ridiculous argument. Essentially, 'Why bother with zoning or neighborhood planning at all? Let the market drive decisions so we can devolve into Houston'.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

That's a ridiculous argument. Essentially, 'Why bother with zoning or neighborhood planning at all? Let the market drive decisions so we can devolve into Houston'.

Are self-storage units an essential part of urban living at this point due to the amount of stuff that the average individual has? I'd lean towards yes. Should a person who lives in an urban environment be required to travel via car to a self-storage unit? No, even though they are more likely to drive to such a facility.

We talk about putting everything that one needs for daily living within walking distance to create a 15-minute neighborhood and I'm saying that self-storage might be one of those needs.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

I'm not sure how relevant the city budget, let alone the DPS budget (btw check out the reserves they are sitting on if you're curious where money goes) are to financing mega projects. This city makes a billion dollars magically appear for mega projects every year. Stock show, DIA, I-70, Platte River, Park Hill to Platte drainage network, Stadiums, major affordable/homeless housing initiatives, the new parks sales tax, paying teachers high salaries, and so on.

Denver aint broke - the city budget is merely for maintenance, services, some smaller projects. The reality about transit funding is we should pursue more value capture mechanisms including a tax district to capture the increased valuation around any subway stops. That wouldn't work with streetcar which would honestly be a total waste of money anyway, and likely slower and much less convenient than just driving.

If only we knew somebody here locally who was an expert in real estate value capture, and structuring/financing of major infrastructure projects... if only.

[TakeFive]

Indeed...

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And to think, once upon a time we were excited about a potential Trump Tower in Denver. My, how times have changed.

Feels like that would have been about six years ago or so?

Speaking of Trump hotels this is an interesting/humorous piece. I also learned today via Reuters that "post-presidency perks" including ~$500K per year for office space that could be use to lease from said hotel.

Originally Posted by BG918

Two tower crane bases are now in place at AMLI Broadway Park at Alameda & Bannock. There is a big excavation there so we should start to see that one go vertical soon. 375 apartment units

It's nice to have a few REIT's that can self-fund.

-----------------

Originally Posted by The Dirt

You'll find that blocking development until transit/infrastructure improvements are made is a recipe for making sure that neither happens.

Originally Posted by twister244

Maybe my opinion is an odd view, but I feel like Denver has, or is about to approach a point where folks are going to start taking a second look before moving here.

Again, not trying to rag on Denver, but imo, it has crossed into the "stupid" expensive territory.

I'm surprised that nobody picked up on the supply-demand paradigm.

If Denver is to continue to grow at a brisk pace, then it's good that all that land is available at "fringe" rail stations that appeals to developers. Obviously, from a housing supply standpoint it's awesome and that way you don't end up with more traffic in Congress Park.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I get the appeal of remote working, but I am in the camp that remote working is ultimately going to end up as gig work for the majority who don't stick their nose in the office a couple of times a week. The siren call of cost savings is just too damn high.

Brilliant; in addition to office space saving why not save HR costs too. There already is many gig workers who make six figure incomes.

Dang; I forgot that Axios had an interesting piece about this just today.

As teleworkers flit from city to city, they're creating a huge tax mess. Our tax laws aren't built for telecommuting, and this new way of working could have dire implications for city and state budgets.

"There’s gonna be a shakeout of what economic activity looks like and where it’s going to get done, and that’s going to require cities to rethink what their tax base looks like," says Kim Rueben of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Generally the issue is going to be a food fight over taxes.

The backdrop: By and large, Americans owe income taxes where they work, Rueben notes.

------------------

Originally Posted by twister244

I can't speak for Dirt, but I am not planning on being in one spot for more than a month or two (as most nomads are). If you are talented enough, and bring value to a company cloud-based and international, I don't think folks care much. Plus, it cuts down on office expenses if less people are coming into the office. I am on the hook for work-related supplies (and co-working memberships) if I go remote long-term. But for me, that's more than worth it to have that privilege.

I'm very envious. Do it why you can!

Originally Posted by rds70

It is 360 Acoma, being constructed by Lennar Multifamily:

So basically what was planned by the previous developer. Did they use the same architect? Not that the concept isn't easy enough to replicate by somebody else.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Denver is just too small. Wonder why RTD District A is so large? Because it is not dense. Barely denser than some of the suburbs around it. We can speculate about a regional tax going to fund Denver's "densest" neighborhoods, but politically, it is never happening.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Sound Transit 3 is more like $28 billion in new taxes; only $11 billion in bonds. The $53.8 billion number is future dollars (clever of them, though). So it’s actually only about 2.5x Fastracks. And it is regional. Nothing at all would prevent us from doing that - although Sound Transit’s footprint is even bigger than RTD’s; it’s more akin to a Front Range system. (Seattle’s geography is what forces such robust investment, and such robust grade separation, in the urban core.)

That is nothing at all like trying to fund a subway on the backs of Denver-proper voters, or asking regional voters to fund a Denver-focused subway system.

The biggest difference between Denver and Seattle is Amazon. They have accumulated over 10 million Sq Ft of office space and they're still growing. For you math whiz's do an overlay of 10m SF in downtown Denver.

The 2nd biggest difference (aside from geography which is indeed BIG) is do a search of Fortune 500 companies in WA/Seattle area. They are mostly recognizable names.

Originally Posted by laniroj

The EB-5 program was great until the Colorado Regional Center screwed it all up and defrauded all of the EB-5 investors on the Solaris project in Vail. Don't think Colorado will be seeing any more EB-5 dollars because of that...

The other huge factor is that China has really clamped down on capital outflows.

Originally Posted by Paulopolis

The 5-story Holland Partners Group development at 10th & Santa Fe looks like it’s going to start construction any day now. It’s been fenced off for a while, and they’re demolishing all the structures on the site. Covered walkways are being installed.

The 8-story development on the corner of 13th & Santa Fe also looks like it is going to start construction at any moment. It’s been fenced off for a while, all the structures have been demolished, and surveyors were on site this morning.

The 9-story DHA mixed-income development at the corner of 13th & Decatur (Sun Valley) looks like it’s going to start construction very soon too. The lot was recently fenced off, and they’ve begun tearing up the parking lot.

Thanks for the good info.

IIRC, 10th & Santa Fe is another example where an established developer with access to capital bought out a developer with less capability.

Nice to hear about 13th & Decatur (Sun Valley) moving forward; obviously a different funding avenue and designated affordable housing always a good thing.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

In my experience, once someone's POV becomes fully myopic there is no talking them down from that ledge (further evidenced by your suggestion in the next post to close down Blu Pan), but basically you think Denver is a poor struggling city with no resources.

I'm not sure how relevant the city budget, let alone the DPS budget (btw check out the reserves they are sitting on if you're curious where money goes) are to financing mega projects. This city makes a billion dollars magically appear for mega projects every year. Stock show, DIA, I-70, Platte River, Park Hill to Platte drainage network, Stadiums, major affordable/homeless housing initiatives, the new parks sales tax, paying teachers high salaries, and so on.

Well you're conflating lots of stuff; but fair point.

Each of these projects does have its own history and funding story.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

If only we knew somebody here locally who was an expert in real estate value capture, and structuring/financing of major infrastructure projects... if only.

Have to agree..... If only?

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Are self-storage units an essential part of urban living at this point due to the amount of stuff that the average individual has? I'd lean towards yes. Should a person who lives in an urban environment be required to travel via car to a self-storage unit?

Self storage isn't a new thing. In fact, the "Storage Castle" on east Colfax has been a self storage place since it opened in 1926 - long before cars were the norm. How is this development any different than that one?

Here's a great little history about it - https://denverite.com/2017/10/09/cas...cap-hill-area/

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

Self storage isn't a new thing. In fact, the "Storage Castle" on east Colfax has been a self storage place since it opened in 1926 - long before cars were the norm. How is this development any different than that one?

Like you really want to count the ways?

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Are self-storage units an essential part of urban living at this point due to the amount of stuff that the average individual has? I'd lean towards yes. Should a person who lives in an urban environment be required to travel via car to a self-storage unit? No, even though they are more likely to drive to such a facility.

We talk about putting everything that one needs for daily living within walking distance to create a 15-minute neighborhood and I'm saying that self-storage might be one of those needs.

^Exactly. This is the most intelligent thing someone has ever said on this forum. We can't just want the bright new shiny things, we have to take the mundane and utility right next door. 15 minute neighborhoods = fewer vehicles on the road, then transit starts working.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Like you really want to count the ways?

Yes - how is this planned self storage for a booming neighborhood any different than the self storage for a booming neighborhood built in 1926? They're literally 5,000 feet from each other.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by laniroj

^Exactly. This is the most intelligent thing someone has ever said on this forum. We can't just want the bright new shiny things, we have to take the mundane and utility right next door. 15 minute neighborhoods = fewer vehicles on the road, then transit starts working.

LMAO -- so the goal now is to have everyone within a 15 minute walk of a self storage facility?

During the extensive East Central neighborhood planning process did anyone....I mean literally even one person.....mention self storage as a desire for the neighborhood?

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

Yes - how is this planned self storage for a booming neighborhood any different than the self storage for a booming neighborhood built in 1926?

Just riffing a few ways.....

1- 1926 self storage did not require housing to be demolished to be built
2- 1926 self storage was built in the modern day equivalent of stapleton, not downtown
3- 1926 self storage was not surrounded by buildings with historic designation (literally on three sides of the 16th and pearl property)
4- 1926 self storage was not built during a housing crisis
5- 1926 self storage was built when there was no shortage of vacant land in the city
6- 1926 self storage was not built in the middle of a traffic and public transit crisis
7- 1926 self storage was not built within a 5 minute walk of Denver's busiest public transit hub
7- That 1926 building really is a piece of shit and contributes to one of the deadest, least pedestrian friendly, and least activated stretches of Colfax. It is a great example of why NOT to do this. Saying 'look at this shitty building, it happened' is no good reason to do it again. And to be clear, the city agrees as current zoning on colfax prohibits another self storage from being built, because we have evolved since 1926. This lot is just outside of the mainstreet zoning on Colfax, but is still an utterly inappropriate location for a storage shed.

[mhays]

Walkable self-storage is certainly a benefit to many urban dwellers. Some will choose a drivable location (which might be cheaper) and some will choose something they can get to more easily and frequently.

Storage is pretty innocuous, and not the sort of thing that needs to be zoned against entirely. Mostly it's just a low-use use. But even while it can deaden a block, it can indirectly support a neighborhood's growth. Maybe it can be limited.

In a basic google maps search, storage places seem common on the fringes of both of our downtowns, and sometimes walkable to lesser urban districts. They're clearly not a necessity for an area to grow. But they do often follow multifamily growth.

As for supermarkets, yes I'd discourage single-use suburban supermarkets in urban neighborhoods. Those are prime mixed-use opportunities, with good examples in Denver.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

LMAO -- so the goal now is to have everyone within a 15 minute walk of a self storage facility?

During the extensive East Central neighborhood planning process did anyone....I mean literally even one person.....mention self storage as a desire for the neighborhood?

No. I believe the number one desire was to not change anything in the entire neighborhood, add affordable housing, maintain the single family home nature of the neighborhoods, keep the poor people out, add parks everywhere, and to make the entire place walkable. All while, again, not changing anything.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

No. I believe the number one desire was to not change anything in the entire neighborhood, add affordable housing, maintain the single family home nature of the neighborhoods, keep the poor people out, add parks everywhere, and to make the entire place walkable. All while, again, not changing anything.

LOL that's true. So clearly this should be a park serving latte's for the gentrifiers.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Streetcars on MLK Blvd and/or 13th/14th would be a much more practical alternative than a subway for E Denver. 10,000 units is a fart in the wind of the amount of density you'd need to justify a subway investment though. I get why you want it, but what people want and what is practical or possible are very different things - then again, we vote for impractical things that we want all the time so there's ample precedent for your argument. The only data point going in favor of a subway IMO is the fact that streetcars running through all those SFH NIMBY areas wouldn't stimulate any additional dense development/investment because (just like the West Rail) all of those SFH owners will decry everything and try to fortify their bubble. The ROI on streetcars would be nothing in between west cap hill and stapleton (Central Park?)/lowry.

nobody is riding street cars when ubers will be a whole lot easier and not much more of a cost.

ya'll love to hype up trains, but new york sucks and that's why people live here. walking to and waiting for trains with huge crowds in disgusting stations with covid here for the long haul isn't a winner. we're nothing like new york in terms of stuff, so it's a dumb ideal. we also have the space they don't.

anti car thinking is so 10 years ago. clean cars are coming. in time they'll be autonomous and traffic won't be a thing. it's time to look forward.

anyway, speaking of trains. has anybody ever seen somebody riding the train through five points? exactly...

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by rds70

Courtesy Businessden

this is basically the museum tower in charlotte

[BG918]

New tower crane going up at 13th & Sherman today

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Ride share and electric cars are going to be large components of our transportation going forward although the present economics are distorted by all of the external costs not included in the price of using those modes. Walking, biking, taking a bus, and using rail are each several orders of magnitude more energy efficient than even the most efficient electric vehicles. My interest is primarily in designing cities where you can reasonably get around without a car, and that doesn't necessarily mean investing billions more dollars in rail systems much more than simply infilling around the substantial system we already have. That's a much more sustainable, healthy, and socially integrated future. Lithium ion mining poses some serious environmental issues that we shouldn't ignore. We can keep cars but we shouldn't design the future of our cities exclusively around convenience for personal auto use