DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Interesting rezoning going before committee this week. 2000 Blake Street, encompassing about 1/3 of the block across from the Rockies stadium, made up of two parcels is being rezone from a PUD to C-MX-8 (commercial, mixed-use, 8 stories). The property is owned by an LLC formed earlier this year, so it looks like there's interest in redeveloping this empty parking lot. Additionally, the abutting property making up the rest of the block is being rezoned from one PUD to another PUD. However, this is owned by the stadium district, so it looks like whatever they have planned here will be a separate project.

I know that the stadium district has proposed putting a festival square/parking lot on their parcel and that they negotiated an easement with Xcel to use their property as well for this. I wouldn't expect much more than that given the easement and Xcel's future needs in downtown that will keep their old substation property exactly as it is.

But an 8-story building abutting one side of this square would be exciting.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

negotiated an easement with Xcel to use their property as well for this. I wouldn't expect much more than that given the easement and Xcel's future needs in downtown that will keep their old substation property exactly as it is.

I'm guessing the easement has to do with how that block is divided and not the substation itself. The north corner of the block got divided into two weird swoopy parcels, with Xcel owning the eastern one next to the substation parcel.

https://www.denvergov.org/media/gis/...asmt_02279.pdf

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I'm guessing the easement has to do with how that block is divided and not the substation itself. The north corner of the block got divided into two weird swoopy parcels, with Xcel owning the eastern one next to the substation parcel.

https://www.denvergov.org/media/gis/...asmt_02279.pdf

That's correct. There's is an access point to the substation there on the weird swoopy part, but I don't know if there's another reason for it such as underground transmission lines.

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Interesting rezoning going before committee this week. 2000 Blake Street, encompassing about 1/3 of the block across from the Rockies stadium, made up of two parcels is being rezone from a PUD to C-MX-8 (commercial, mixed-use, 8 stories). The property is owned by an LLC formed earlier this year, so it looks like there's interest in redeveloping this empty parking lot. Additionally, the abutting property making up the rest of the block is being rezoned from one PUD to another PUD. However, this is owned by the stadium district, so it looks like whatever they have planned here will be a separate project.

Interesting, but owners request zoning changes for reasons beyond new structures. There are no concept plans on file for either of their lots which usually precedes a zoning request. However, their zoning is currently inconsistent across the two lots with the one closest to 20th St has B-8 zoning and their adjacent lot is PUD. One side has surface parking and the other is dirt. Maybe they want consistent zoning change to expand their little parking lot. Just sayin

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Guess I have to agree
what's to prevent a 'developer' from assembling a quarter, third, half or even full block, scraping it and building another nice AVA RiNo apartment building?

zoning. Zoning dictates what a developer can build on any plot of land. If zoning allows it, then the city has very little say beyond design reviews required in certain districts. Of course if a zoning change is requested, the city has the power to block it if they don't like the concept proposed.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mhays

I never suggested anything like that. But let's go there. The easiest development sites aren't enough to handle growth, and aren't always available to begin with. A healthy land supply requires broader availability. If you want a clue, look at the prices being paid.

If people want a clue then go out and try to buy residential land for dev/redev right now within 25 miles of Denver. It's damn near impossible...and you all thought buying a house with 10 offers was rough!

I laugh when people on this forum say we have enough land. If someone on this forum thinks we have enough developable land in the Denver area, please do us all a favor and get into the real estate development business as fast as possible so you can start contributing to the housing shortage solution instead of pontificating it. We certifiably have land, this is true, but we do not have enough buildable land that is zoned properly to accommodate housing units which meet the needs of existing households and the ones that want to live here.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

We certifiably have land, this is true, but we do not have enough buildable land that is zoned properly to accommodate housing units which meet the needs of existing households and the ones that want to live here.

I think you need to add in the places people want to live. Maybe that's what you mean by "meet the needs of existing households." Nobody wants to live far out on the eastern plains. But as a great man once said:

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find
You get what you need

[TakeFive]

Did you take a long siesta and just wake up?

Originally Posted by laniroj

If people want a clue then go out and try to buy residential land for dev/redev right now within 25 miles of Denver. It's damn near impossible...and you all thought buying a house with 10 offers was rough!

The fact that developers have bought up tons of land over the last decade... the fact that it takes time to entitle land... the fact that their are master developers selling parcels to builders for development...

Also, go back through the news for 2021 as to how many parcels of land have been sold in RiNo. There's a bunch of em.

Didn't you mention recently that you drove down So Santa Fe and noticed construction you weren't previously aware of? Well, before shovels went into the ground there was land that 'somebody' had to buy.

For you next excursion drive down So Broadway to south of Evans; there are several projects that have broken ground or are pending. That was all land that somebody had to buy.

Speaking of land development.


Carla Ferreira, director of Onsite Development and a principal at The Aurora Highlands, won the Young Leader Award.

Aurora Highlands Wins Five Awards at Denver MAME Awards
November 18, 2021 - Mile High CRE

The Aurora Highlands took home five awards at the Denver MAME Awards on November 6. The MAME Awards are hosted by the Home Builders Association (HBA) of Metro Denver and honors professionals in Denver’s residential building, design and real estate industry. The awards ceremony was held at the Hyatt Regency Denver at Colorado Convention Center. The MAME Awards represent Denver housing industry professionals’ recognition and appreciation of the Aurora Highlands’ accomplishments over the past year.

12,500 homes and four new schools isn't chopped liver.


How about 41-acres of Urban Renewal and TOD

Former Denver Post printing facility officially ‘blighted,’ paving the way for massive redevelopment in Globeville
Nov 29, 2021 By Esteban L. Hernandez/Denverite

Plans call for a children’s park, a dog park, a daycare, and community and cultural centers. It would all be constructed in phases over the next eight to 10 years, starting in 2023.

Wait... you want more?

The current vision for the site includes more than 3,300 apartment units, 1.9 million square feet of office space and more than 5,500 underground parking spaces. The developer has agreed to require 7% of the new apartment units to be income-restricted for 99 years.

In case you missed it...

EAST WEST PARTNERS TO REDEVELOP CHERRY CREEK WEST
November 24, 2021

A new place to live and work with an emphasis on pedestrian movement over car travel is coming to Cherry Creek West. Denver-based real estate and community developer East West Partners announced today that it is launching a transformative redevelopment of the land immediately west of the Cherry Creek Shopping Center in Cherry Creek. 

How about 72 acres on a hilltop?

Homebuilder pays $14M for 25 acres of Loretto Heights campus
October 13, 2021 By ERIC HEINZ | BusinessDen

The owner of the former Loretto Heights campus in the southwest area of the city has sold about a third of the site to a Denver-based homebuilder. Thrive Home Builders paid $14.4 million, according to public records, for what CEO Gene Myers described as about 25 acres along the north and west edges of the campus.

The company plans to build 322 homes, some detached and some townhomes.

Courtesy of Westside Investment Partners


Awesome classic by the Stones

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes, well, you might find
You get what you need

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Did you take a long siesta and just wake up?


The fact that developers have bought up tons of land over the last decade... the fact that it takes time to entitle land... the fact that their are master developers selling parcels to builders for development...

Also, go back through the news for 2021 as to how many parcels of land have been sold in RiNo. There's a bunch of em.

Didn't you mention recently that you drove down So Santa Fe and noticed construction you weren't previously aware of? Well, before shovels went into the ground there was land that 'somebody' had to buy.

For you next excursion drive down So Broadway to south of Evans; there are several projects that have broken ground or are pending. That was all land that somebody had to buy.

Speaking of land development.


Carla Ferreira, director of Onsite Development and a principal at The Aurora Highlands, won the Young Leader Award.

Aurora Highlands Wins Five Awards at Denver MAME Awards
November 18, 2021 - Mile High CRE

12,500 homes and four new schools isn't chopped liver.


How about 41-acres of Urban Renewal and TOD

Former Denver Post printing facility officially ‘blighted,’ paving the way for massive redevelopment in Globeville
Nov 29, 2021 By Esteban L. Hernandez/Denverite

Wait... you want more?


In case you missed it...

EAST WEST PARTNERS TO REDEVELOP CHERRY CREEK WEST
November 24, 2021


How about 72 acres on a hilltop?

Homebuilder pays $14M for 25 acres of Loretto Heights campus
October 13, 2021 By ERIC HEINZ | BusinessDen



Courtesy of Westside Investment Partners


Awesome classic by the Stones

lol, love it. Do people really think there is plentiful AND cheap land in any city of merit? So absurd -- that doesn't mean there isn't development opportunity. Take a look at satellite image of Arapahoe Sq, or 62 acres of the River Mile or 80 acres around Empower field or another 8 acres at Gate District or the entirely empty FULL city blocks right in CBD, the greyhound block, etc etc. This city is riddled with vacant lots. Sure, not every single one is on the market simultaneously, but owners aren't really sentimentally attached to their parking lots, they buy land as investments. They will sell when the right opportunity arises.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Did you take a long siesta and just wake up?

The fact that developers have bought up tons of land over the last decade... the fact that it takes time to entitle land... the fact that their are master developers selling parcels to builders for development...

I did take a siesta, it was quite nice but I also tend to zone out when the forum goes to homelessness. We spent $483 million last year on it for 6,100 people metrowide, almost $80k per person. We should absolutely be deriving better results for that kind of money.

As pertains housing, you're not wrong as to the level of activity but I don't look to one or ten or fifty projects to validate my beliefs on housing - that's what we call confirmation bias IMO. Rather, I look at data and interpret the objective result. We have significantly more people that want housing than there is available housing existing or proposed to satisfy the overall need and so prices will keep rising resulting in an elite city for the rich. To Bunt's point, we also don't produce it necessarily where people "want" to be but this issue is so overwhelming right now I don't think that distinction even matters anymore - people are going where they can survive at this point and have any housing or they are leaving Denver entirely, just like they're abandoning the coasts for Denver. So while you're buffet of development is spot on, the point is it's not nearly enough and it's being artificially held back. For me, as someone developing very large projects in Denver right now, land is the #1 throttle restrictor, followed by ongoing/generational labor issues in the trades which have resulted in astronomical cost increases the past decade, but pointedly in the last 5 years and an insane increase in 2021 as a result of supply chain.

I know you and many others think this is just the way it is, but it really doesn't have to be this way. We could open the floodgates so to speak with what Ken suggests, allow tri/four plex on every lot and meaningfully upzone (quickly) large swaths of transit corridors and arterials. This would help make available more land for development to more developers, including non-traditional developers who don't need a maze of administrative expertise and financial horsepower to navigate a complex zoning/permitting system for large projects. Permitting houses is easy...real easy comparatively. This kind of change has the effect of opening up more land for more diverse development options AND allowing for more people to develop housing. We often forget that up until the crazy administrative growth of permitting starting in the 90's, normal folks used to develop stuff all the time. Some row homes on an end block, a mom and pop shopping center, etc etc. Development doesn't have to be reserved for the sophisticated money, we could open it up to the average American household if we wanted to. Talk about equity...that's equity.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

allow tri/four plex on every lot and meaningfully upzone (quickly) large swaths of transit corridors and arterials. This would help make available more land for development to more developers, including non-traditional developers who don't need a maze of administrative expertise and financial horsepower to navigate a complex zoning/permitting system for large projects. Permitting houses is easy...real easy comparatively. This kind of change has the effect of opening up more land for more diverse development options AND allowing for more people to develop housing. We often forget that up until the crazy administrative growth of permitting starting in the 90's, normal folks used to develop stuff all the time. Some row homes on an end block, a mom and pop shopping center, etc etc. Development doesn't have to be reserved for the sophisticated money, we could open it up to the average American household if we wanted to. Talk about equity...that's equity.

I'd build a unit on my alley if it wouldn't get me crucified. Literal crucifixion. Right there in the alley. Boom, end o' me.

I am also holding my old crappy house down by DU as a rental - that's my hedge in case I want to scrape myself a McMansion someday. But if I had fourplex zoning, it would start to look awfully tempting to go build a small project on that (rather large) lot...

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by laniroj

We often forget that up until the crazy administrative growth of permitting starting in the 90's, normal folks used to develop stuff all the time. Some row homes on an end block, a mom and pop shopping center, etc etc. Development doesn't have to be reserved for the sophisticated money, we could open it up to the average American household if we wanted to. Talk about equity...that's equity.

This. One million percent this. It's weird how people, especially on the right, are totally okay with this level of bureaucracy.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

This. One million percent this. It's weird how people, especially on the right, are totally okay with this level of bureaucracy.

I don't think those on the right necessarily are ok with this, but this problem exists in places where people on the right essentially have no say in government...it also exists in red places, but to a far lesser extent and severity.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

lol, love it. Do people really think there is plentiful AND cheap land in any city of merit? So absurd -- that doesn't mean there isn't development opportunity....

There is plentiful and cheap land in some cities. It's not mutually exclusive - nice cities and affordable land. The question isn't whether there is development opportunity or not, the question is does our development meet the needs of our population? If you think it does then that's your prerogative, but many millions of American households disagree with that comfortable perspective - like...such... as...the 1/3 of households paying more than 30% of their total income toward housing or the almost 10% of households paying 50%+ toward housing.

Don't get me wrong, someone making $30k isn't entitled to live in a highly desirable and expensive place, but they should be entitled to pursuit of the American dream which includes access to housing where they can earn a damn living.

[mhays]

Did TakeFive just argue that the existence of housing construction means development sites are plentiful and affordable?

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mhays

Did TakeFive just argue that the existence of housing construction means development sites are plentiful and affordable?

Many, many people make that argument. You would not believe how many people show up at zoning hearings and point out all the construction and "their favorite site where this project should go".

That said I do appreciate TakeFive pointing out all those developments.

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Ken suggests, allow tri/four plex on every lot and meaningfully upzone (quickly) large swaths of transit corridors and arterials. This would help make available more land for development to more developers, including non-traditional developers who don't need a maze of administrative expertise and financial horsepower to navigate a complex zoning/permitting system for large projects. Permitting houses is easy...real easy comparatively. This kind of change has the effect of opening up more land for more diverse development options AND allowing for more people to develop housing.

that makes sense, but I wonder what it takes to get a wide-scale zoning change? The McMansion might not want a tri-plex next door, but who cares.

Interestingly enough, the slot homes that Denver banned previously were pretty affordable. Seems like the aesthetic issue could be fixed with just ensuring the the street facing facade looked like a normal frontage.

[Agent Orange]

Definitely dig Ken's suggestion of fourplex minimum zoning, though we should take a lesson from Minneapolis' experience and couple the upzoning with abolishing parking minimums and reducing set backs/increasing FAR limits. Their triplex reform has apparently produced very few units because of the many other limitations imposed by the zoning/land use code.

If we're talking wish lists though - I'd like to see higher density above fourplex on corner lots and near transit stations/high frequency bus routes. I'm curious if laniroj could speculate on what the economics of small one/two lot apartment buildings might be if zoning and parking rules allowed them. I'm thinking of all the 3 story walk up apartment buildings you see from the 40s-60s in Central Denver. Those provide some unobtrusive density and housing type diversity to SFH dominated neighborhoods (because let's be real, each unit in a 4-plex in Congress Park or Highland is still gonna be 800k and up).

Could zoning reform make those 12 unit walk ups viable again at a cost competitive with 5-on-1 megablock construction? A modern version of those were built over by 17th and Park back in 2016 or so before the "small lot exemption" was gutted.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

Seems like the aesthetic issue could be fixed with just ensuring the the street facing facade looked like a normal frontage.

You know what I think will improve aesthetics without onerous new regulations? Competition. When you have hundreds of developable sites, you now have many more competing developers, and buyers will now get choices on what to buy rather than having to pick one one ugly, blocky townhouse with 5 different materials and window sizes, just because it's in their desired neighborhood (and maybe just barely in their budget). Developers that build ugly crap will have to compete with developers that build better looking stuff. Right now, it's a seller's market and that means that people are desperate enough to buy prison-grade architecture just so that they can live on a seedy block just because it's a 1/2 mile of Sloan's Lake.

[CONative]

Might be a longshot...

I'm completing a study for my company. Anyone know where I can get numbers on the national housing shortage and the percentage of that shortage that are affordable single-family homes??