DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Cirrus]

^
Love that

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

I just have to say I somewhat disagree with this post, even though you're agreeing with one of my points. I strongly believe that refugees, peaceful protesters, and American veterans (our team) are all worthy of museums and respect. Anytime you can have the national museum of something, especially a group of people, on an otherwise difficult site to redevelop - that's a huge win.

I agree with you, but I don’t think that the Board necessarily shares that view.

[twalm]

Some really cool photos of Populus over on Denver infill: https://denverinfill.com/2024/05/ins...l-populus.html

Next up One River North?

I am curious about what the rooms are like that have a "canyon" balcony. Looking at the website some are available for ~$10,000 / month.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I agree with you, but I don’t think that the Board necessarily shares that view.

That's fair. Debra Johnson is definitely bringing the Oakland, CA politics with her.

I wish more of my fellow progressives in Denver took a "winning city" mentality over the "dying city" cycle of decisions and decline. RTD's sole focus needs to be advancing ridership, transit access, and land use impact; that alone should be progressive enough for RTD.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by twalm

Some really cool photos of Populus over on Denver infill: https://denverinfill.com/2024/05/ins...l-populus.html

Next up One River North?

Thanks for sharing the Populus post! I need to reach out to One River North and get something set up.

[wong21fr]

Denver proposes leveraging $500M for downtown redevelopment

This seems like a smart idea to leverage private development downtown of housing via new construction and office conversions with public funds. If the city could allocate $100M-200M of this towards housing I wonder how many projects that could enable? IIRC, I've seen developers mentions a 20% gap in office to residential conversion costs where subsidies are needed. Leverage the funds for a couple thousand units in Upper Downtown and re-activate those streets!

Other public projects that I can think of that the city could work on would be adding more permanent public restrooms, the completion of the Skyline Park renovation, re-configuring the RTD bust network into high-frequency trunks through downtown with enhanced stations (still have no idea if the Colfax BRT project will upgrade stations within downtown), public safety improvements via a police substation setup downtown, enhancement of cross-streets into shared streets, fully funding the Urban Forest Initiative, and (maybe) some public housing.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Thanks for sharing the Populus post! I need to reach out to One River North and get something set up.

Wonderful photo tour there, Ryan. Glad to see you're still able to comprehensive projects like that with your busy schedule.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

(still have no idea if the Colfax BRT project will upgrade stations within downtown)

Thank you for repeating this question again. Inquiring minds want to know, and this is the kind of "nugget" of information many of us continue coming here for!

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Denver proposes leveraging $500M for downtown redevelopment

This seems like a smart idea to leverage private development downtown of housing via new construction and office conversions with public funds. If the city could allocate $100M-200M of this towards housing I wonder how many projects that could enable? IIRC, I've seen developers mentions a 20% gap in office to residential conversion costs where subsidies are needed. Leverage the funds for a couple thousand units in Upper Downtown and re-activate those streets!

Actively pursuing this and probably waiting in line with the other anxious developers. If the City can figure out how to move quickly, for once, they could achieve a couple thousand units. If they over-process and regulate the hell out of this, nothing meaningful will happen outside a few token projects for a re-election campaign.

The obsolete office values are still dropping though and lenders are still extending, so I suspect it will be another couple quarters before anything acquisition wise starts moving or is announced (at the soonest). Couple years for conversions to come to fruition.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Actively pursuing this and probably waiting in line with the other anxious developers. If the City can figure out how to move quickly, for once, they could achieve a couple thousand units. If they over-process and regulate the hell out of this, nothing meaningful will happen outside a few token projects for a re-election campaign.

Well Mike did mention they wanted to reduce development review time by 30% by the end of the year. I would have personally aimed for a halving of review times and just shoving plan review through an AI program to cut out the human cog- maybe then the reduction would have gotten close to 30%.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Well Mike did mention they wanted to reduce development review time by 30% by the end of the year. I would have personally aimed for a halving of review times and just shoving plan review through an AI program to cut out the human cog- maybe then the reduction would have gotten close to 30%.

That only speaks to once you submit for permit. What about the YEARS of work before that when the real project happens? You know, the RFPs and RFQs, then two years for establishing the conversion incentive process and hiring an armada of City staff to administer a simple program, and the year it would take to document and fund any incentive once it's approved? Call me cynical...nay, realistic! ...and yet I'll still give it my college best. After all, beggars can't also be choosers- or so conventional logic used to demand!

[bobg]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Thank you for repeating this question again. Inquiring minds want to know, and this is the kind of "nugget" of information many of us continue coming here for!

I don't believe so. The rollplot on the 90% design area maps (Under project design and branding) shows standard curb stations on Broadway and Colfax and doesn't even show the rest of downtown. Aurora has a mix of level and standard.

I swear I saw earlier documents showing different, everytime Wong mentions that I keep wanting to go back and review some of the older meetings on youtube and find out was discussed. I kind of stopped paying attention when they started getting into color schemes and canopy design. Hopefully I can find some time to find a definitive answer and fingers crossed it's part of some parallel project.

[Cirrus]

OK I clicked the link for the Colfax BRT and went to the FAQ which is titled Col-FAQs and A+ to whoever's responsible for the pun. They had a chance to do something great and took it.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bobg

I don't believe so. The rollplot on the 90% design area maps (Under project design and branding) shows standard curb stations on Broadway and Colfax and doesn't even show the rest of downtown. Aurora has a mix of level and standard.

I swear I saw earlier documents showing different, everytime Wong mentions that I keep wanting to go back and review some of the older meetings on youtube and find out was discussed. I kind of stopped paying attention when they started getting into color schemes and canopy design. Hopefully I can find some time to find a definitive answer and fingers crossed it's part of some parallel project.

Thanks! I haven't checked the project website in a while. It is exciting to see actual phasing and timing and design - it's getting real.

I would think that any transit planner working on this project would understand the value of enhanced stations downtown. But these would also be an obvious cut to the scope when the budget is tight. It is quite possible they were discussed early on, but are no longer included in this project. Those roll plots seem pretty clear that this scope of work stops at Broadway. I suppose that probably means, unfortunately, the answer is no. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be added later.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Thanks! I haven't checked the project website in a while. It is exciting to see actual phasing and timing and design - it's getting real.

I would think that any transit planner working on this project would understand the value of enhanced stations downtown. But these would also be an obvious cut to the scope when the budget is tight. It is quite possible they were discussed early on, but are no longer included in this project. Those roll plots seem pretty clear that this scope of work stops at Broadway. I suppose that probably means, unfortunately, the answer is no. But that doesn't mean they couldn't be added later.

I always thought that the project ended at Broadway for the BRT because that was the scope of the FTA grant application but that there was supplemental working being done to connect to Union Station. Guess not.

Hopefully the $500M downtown funding proposal includes enhancements to the transit experience downtown beyond bike lane improvements.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I always thought that the project ended at Broadway for the BRT because that was the scope of the FTA grant application but that there was supplemental working being done to connect to Union Station. Guess not.

Hopefully the $500M downtown funding proposal includes enhancements to the transit experience downtown beyond bike lane improvements.

In one of the earlier meetings they mention the adding of dedicated lanes and a generic mention of station enhancements downtown. That was pre 17th being done. Couldn't find more beyond that anywhere, and don't see anything in Denver moves downtown or any active projects.

At a minimum I would think they would need to add TVM's to the X stops, but who knows. Hopefully it's not a DOTI oversight.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bobg

In one of the earlier meetings they mention the adding of dedicated lanes and a generic mention of station enhancements downtown. That was pre 17th being done. Couldn't find more beyond that anywhere, and don't see anything in Denver moves downtown or any active projects.

At a minimum I would think they would need to add TVM's to the X stops, but who knows. Hopefully it's not a DOTI oversight.

It would be a pretty big oversight, but I wouldn't be surprised. On the other hand, I would hope that improving the transit experience downtown with enhanced stops would be something that is high on DOTI's list.

[wong21fr]

To this point:

Originally Posted by gopokes21

RTD's biggest problem is they think their land assets are worth infinitely more than they really are. Based on their mission, and mission alignment with the City of Denver, they want affordability in any housing component - that immediately restricts the valuation of their land. Going through their RFP and procurement processes further reduces the value of their land.

2. RTD had an RFP for the 38th and Blake park and ride lot two years ago. How could they possibly bungle TOD on such a great site? Easy - someone grossly overpaid for the Pepsi facility across the street, and RTD wanted the same deal or even better for their site. The minimum offer for the site was $40 million for around 1 acre! Buzz Geller isn't even that high. On top of that, the proposals had to be for affordable housing. Lastly, their RFP coincided with the fastest Federal Reserve prime rate rising cycle in American history, further eroding the value the market would bear for the site.

there was this article in BusinessDen:

Developer drops bid to build on RTD parking lot in RiNo

Say what you want about RTD, they are really good at land-banking to develop these lots in 2424 give or take a century.

[gopokes21]

Here's the really interesting part. BusinessDen says that RTD confirmed their proposal was "unsolicited." That means it was not chosen through the earlier RFP. Read into that what you will, I myself have a few ideas but not really sure what to make of it.