DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[BG918]

The next wave of development in Belleview Station isn’t even depicted on that rendering:
-18 story hotel (Staybridge site)
-20 story Kimpton Hotel (Block E)
-17 story Alexan Belleview Station (Block E)
-16 story Revesco condos (Block D)

[SirLucasTheGreat]

The A line is awesome. I hope this is not too much of a transportation-related comment but I really wish that the southeast corridor was able to utilize commuter rails as opposed to light rails that top out at 55 mph. The fact that a light rail trip from lone tree into the CBD takes an hour is a tremendous disincentive for people who might otherwise use it. Part of that issue is perhaps an overabundance of stations in the suburban segments of the corridor.

I am excited for the development in the city to hopefully orient itself more around our transit system than it has in the past. Union Station is seen as a national standard for contemporary TOD. I just hope that we can really capitalize on developing 38th and Blake, I25 and Broadway, Alameda Station, Colorado Station, and Belleview Station in a manner that takes a maximal number of cars off the road.

[mishko27]

Originally Posted by BG918

The next wave of development in Belleview Station isn’t even depicted on that rendering:
-18 story hotel (Staybridge site)
-20 story Kimpton Hotel (Block E)
-17 story Alexan Belleview Station (Block E)
-16 story Revesco condos (Block D)

I am aware of Stonebridge and Kimpton projects, any details / info about Alexan and Revesco? Google is not coming up with anything.

[RyanD]

Here are some things I dug up in the permits around Belleview Station:

6811 S Chenango

Site development plan filed but needs a resubmittal.

A proposed 17-story mixed-use building that contains approximately 250 apartment units with approximately 6,500 square feet of ground floor retail and 200 parking spaces located within the structure. The development is located on 0.91 acres at the northeast corner of Chenango Avenue and South Newport Street within Block E of Belleview Station.

Belleview Station Mixed Use project located at 4885 S Quebec St (Extended Stay Lot)

They have a construction permit out for this for demo / excavation.

Site Plan - The proposed project is a Mixed-Use building with 18 stories above grade and 3 levels of below grade structured parking. The building includes ground level retail and restaurant space, amenities such as conference and fitness centers, hotel, and office functions.

4900 Syracuse - Kimpton Hotel

Going through the process, no construction permits filed just yet.

Site Plan - 20-Story, 190 room hotel with approx. 154,345 sqft. including 13,595 ground level lobby/ restaurant. One level of above ground parking (40 Spaces).

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Thanks, Ryan! One small note - I am not sure that is the right address for the Kimpton Hotel. BusinessDen says that the building will be on the northwest corner of Chenango and Olive. At any rate, that is going to be one dense cluster of buildings right outside the station.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

For those that are interested, here are some very basic renderings from the master planner:

North of Union Avenue -



South of Union Avenue -

[The Dirt]

So much parking!

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by twister244

Looks like VF is going to encompass a footprint beyond their main HQ office in downtown - https://businessden.com/2020/02/03/v...ghton-in-rino/

Just one more new office building getting gobbled up, which increases the chances of more office space breaking ground in RiNo....

The DBJ adds some detail to what VF Corp is doing.

VF Corp. plans to move Global Innovation Center from California to Denver
Feb 3, 2020 By James Rodriguez – Reporter, Denver Business Journal

When their original HQ move was announce I wondered if this might also happen at some point but I didn't know how strongly they were tethered to their current site.

Trent Rice and Connor Donahue of NAI Shames Makovsky represented the property's owners... By the time Rice and Donahue heard that VF was in the market for more space, they had already turned down several coworking companies who were interested in the property...

There's also this:

VF also recently leased 58,000 square feet of industrial space at 6050 Washington St., which a company spokesperson said will be primarily used for brand product storage.

This had been previously announced but as a reminder:

In November, VF paid $10.3 million for two parcels of land totaling 1.03 acres at Centennial Airport, where the company plans to build a hangar for its fleet of private jets used by executives who travel around the world for business.

[TakeFive]

SOLD
to the man over there.


Photo by Jim Havey, Havey Productions via CREJ

Brookfield buys Denver City Center
February 3, 2020 By Jill Jamieson-Nichols - CREJ

Shorenstein Properties LLC has sold Denver City Center in downtown Denver to an institutional investor for $400 million in one of the largest single-asset sales in Denver history. ... Shorenstein Properties acquired Denver City Center out of its Tenth Fund for $286 million in 2013.

Denver City Center consists of adjacent 42- and 29-story office buildings at 707 and 717 17th St. It comprises approximately 1.28 million square feet. The Hilton Denver City Center hotel, which occupies 20 floors at 707 17th, was not part of the sale.

For additional reference, Shorenstein recently built The Grand in Union Station.

[Cirrus]

People in every city in the world shout "we're not XYZ city" whenever examples they don't like from elsewhere are made. It's virtually never a good argument. What matters is supply, demand, and the effects of how we succeed or fail to meet them. Those specifics do vary city by city based on the specifics of their markets, regulations, and infrastructure, but the basic patterns vary less than claimed by people who hope to establish their own city as outside the normal rules of markets.

Saying "Denver has a lot of room for infill" is like saying "there's unlimited room for growth east of Aurora." It's true, but it ignores critical factors that affect the market and contribute to the current state of un-affordability. Denver is expensive not because it lacks room for growth anywhere, but because it lacks room for growth in the places where demand is highest.

This is why it's a particular problem for Curtis Park--a neighborhood within walking distance of downtown--to remain relatively low density. Proximity to downtown is one of the major features driving housing prices; lots of people move as close to it as they can afford. When a downtown-adjacent neighborhood like Curtis Park cuts off supply, that not only drives up prices in Curtis Park, but it also drives up prices elsewhere as people who want to live close to downtown seek the next best option.

That is how--and why--gentrification flows over the city. Everyone wants to move as close to X as they can. If they can't move to X, they move to Y, the next best option. And if they can't move to Y, they move to the next best option, Z. The entire city is covered in an ever-enlarging wave of unaffodability, as growth flows downhill to the next best option after the next best option. But so very much of it could be avoided if all those people who actually just want to live in X were allowed to. It's an inherent problem to cutting off growth in any city's "oldest neighborhood;" that neighborhood is the oldest because it's in the most prime location.

This downward flow of growth is a key point, not only for affordability, but also for preservation. It means that when neighborhoods like Curtis Park cut off growth, they're sending the growth that naturally belongs there to other neighborhoods, meaning many other neighborhoods that would naturally be easily preserved face development pressure of their own. Whittier is losing historic affordable housing because Curtis Park is pushing development there, and Skyland is losing historic affordable housing because Whittier is pushing development there, etc etc ad nauseam.

It all starts with the small handful of neighborhoods that are most desirable for the most people. Curtis Park, Capitol Hill, Highlands, maybe Cherry Creek North. The issues there are different than the issues in Wash Park or Sloan's Lake, because those most immediate neighborhoods are the root of the supply/demand imbalance that's affecting the entire city. Those specific immediate neighborhoods are where the most drastic increases in supply are needed, and where failure to meet that demand is causing wave after wave of problems throughout the entire rest of the metro area.

Saying none of that matters because "Denver isn't coastal" is an abortion of rational thought, made because sticking one's head in the sand is easier than admitting the long-accepted way we've done things causes massive structural problems.

[Cirrus]

PS: This is why the historic preservation movement is facing as much an existential crisis as the affordable housing movement. If we don't find a way for preservation to coexist with adding housing supply in critical places, the next generation is going to just end historic preservation in cities. It will be seen as a villain, the way we see slum clearance as a villain today, and it will be ended. There are already surprisingly frequent calls to kill it completely, and generation Z kids are already surprisingly hostile to it, facts which are only going to get more true as successive generations find themselves increasingly cut-off from its benefits.

If you care at all about historic preservation, you should be at the front of the line calling for it to evolve. This is why I say things like "we have to find a way." Figure out a compromise that works for both needs, or understand that eventually the other need will overwhelm the one you care about.

And sure, 40 years after that someone will start to care about preservation again, because the pendulum will have swung too far the other way. But by then what will be left to preserve? Is that the future you want for Curtis Park? It's where we're headed, and it will be preservationists' fault when it happens.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by BG918

The next wave of development in Belleview Station isn’t even depicted on that rendering:
-18 story hotel (Staybridge site)
-20 story Kimpton Hotel (Block E)
-17 story Alexan Belleview Station (Block E)
-16 story Revesco condos (Block D)

How tall is the tallest building in the DTC and adjacent area now? The obvious tallest down toward Arapahoe on the west side of the fwy?

[Agent Orange]

Cirrus, I'm not sure what you’re getting so worked up for. We’re doing neighborhood-by-neighborhood plans over the course of the next decade which should result in ADUs being allowed to be built in a few additional pockets of town. That alone should result in hundreds of new units over the next half century! And on top of that, our rational, non-populist city council is working to protect us from the exploitative developers by exploring construction moratiums and requiring subsidized housing quotas. Not to mention, our local housing advocate group, YIMBY, is working with lawmakers to overturn the state’s awful, neoliberal ban on rent control.

Between the bespoke garage apartments, capturing runaway profits from the landlord class, and the potential to raise housing costs on the 1% through affordable housing mandates, the other 99% of current and future Denverites should have a wealth of housing options in the near future. And looking outside of the city limits, the Democratic field is brimming with brilliant ideas to address the nationwide housing crisis. I think this affordability problem is going to take care of itself in no time.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I believe the tallest building in DTC is Penterra Plaza at 23 stories and 286 feet.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Cirrus, I'm not sure what you’re getting so worked up for. We’re doing neighborhood-by-neighborhood plans over the course of the next decade which should result in ADUs being allowed to be built in a few additional pockets of town. That alone should result in hundreds of new units over the next half century! And on top of that, our rational, non-populist city council is working to protect us from the exploitative developers by exploring construction moratiums and requiring subsidized housing quotas. Not to mention, our local housing advocate group, YIMBY, is working with lawmakers to overturn the state’s awful, neoliberal ban on rent control.

Between the bespoke garage apartments, capturing runaway profits from the landlord class, and the potential to raise housing costs on the 1% through affordable housing mandates, the other 99% of current and future Denverites should have a wealth of housing options in the near future. And looking outside of the city limits, the Democratic field is brimming with brilliant ideas to address the nationwide housing crisis. I think this affordability problem is going to take care of itself in no time.

The problem is that these plans aren't going far enough and giving the richest neighbors veto rights on any sensible upzoning. These plans have started with the premise of neighborhood X needs to be able to absorb 30K number of people over the next decade. Then the neighbors chip away at it and extend the comment period by months, if not years, until the neighborhood is planned to only absorb 15K people. Then neighborhood plan Y comes along a year later and now they have to absorb 45K people, but the people there are outraged that they're being "targeted", so they chip away at the plans until they only have to absorb 15K. Neighborhood plan Z comes along, and now they have to absorb 60K people. This is the problem that we're facing right now.

PS: The state-wide Telluride decisions is way too broad in it's definition of rent control and ties the hands of cities in making policy changes that aren't actually rent control, but legally treated (and prohibited) as such. YIMBY Denver isn't necessarily pro-(actual)-rent-control.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Saying none of that matters because "Denver isn't coastal" is an abortion of rational thought, made because sticking one's head in the sand is easier than admitting the long-accepted way we've done things causes massive structural problems.

Take a deeeeeep breath. There's things you're overlooking which is caused by tunnel vision.

As many millions of people continue to migrate from the Rustbelt and NE to the Sunbelt and SW are you certain they all need to live in a fictional 'Curtis Park' or is it possible they just want a good job and an affordable place to live?

Downtown Denver is growing rapidly, that's true and the number of jobs downtown is also growing. That said, while downtown may have the best job density it still only has about 10% of the metro area jobs. Is it possible that 90% of the population doesn't give two chits about living in Curtis Park?

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Saying "Denver has a lot of room for infill" is like saying "there's unlimited room for growth east of Aurora." It's true, but it ignores critical factors that affect the market and contribute to the current state of un-affordability. Denver is expensive not because it lacks room for growth anywhere, but because it lacks room for growth in the places where demand is highest.

I wouldn't consider 'east of Aurora' to be infill. But that has been a factor.

With the most intense development focused on the city center you're necessarily talking about a lot more expense. The way land costs have escalated in 'sprawling' RiNo demonstrates this and that development in this part of town will be much more costly than on the fringes.

The bigger problem has been that developers have been uninterested in building new affordable housing further out until now. It was like having an oligarchy in your midst as only upscale housing (for the most part) was all builders were interested in over the last ten years.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

That is how--and why--gentrification flows over the city. Everyone wants to move as close to X as they can. If they can't move to X, they move to Y, the next best option. And if they can't move to Y, they move to the next best option, Z. The entire city is covered in an ever-enlarging wave of unaffodability, as growth flows downhill to the next best option after the next best option.

I agree with you to an extent. But the question remains what percentage of the population needs or wants to be downtown. In any case INFILL is expensive.

But so very much of it could be avoided if all those people who actually just want to live in X were allowed to. It's an inherent problem to cutting off growth in any city's "oldest neighborhood;" that neighborhood is the oldest because it's in the most prime location.

I'm uncertain what you specific zoning proposal for Curtis Park would be and how many units could be added as a result. But again it will not be affordable housing; it will not move the needle enough to satisfy those willing to pay up for housing. It's like chasing your tail.

You are totally overlooking all the land already available for denser development in the city center.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You are totally overlooking all the land already available for denser development in the city center.

What are you basing this on? Why don't you start with LoopNet and see just how much land is available for sale. Then look at that land and see how it's zoned, it's parking requirements, overlays, etc.

Everything else you said is in your typical style of using way too many words to say very little.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

PS: This is why the historic preservation movement is facing as much an existential crisis as the affordable housing movement. If we don't find a way for preservation to coexist with adding housing supply in critical places, the next generation is going to just end historic preservation in cities.

IMO you're too hyper-focused on a small area. Let's talk about honest-to-god affordability as apposed to being able to offer someone a nice place for $750,000 instead of $800,000.

I'll put my money on the potential for tens of thousands of people to be perfectly happy living a train station away (or three) from downtown. By the end of the year there will be essentially six corridors radiating out from downtown. The opportunity to build legitimately affordable housing are out there.

Places like 41st and Fox Station, Pecos Junction Station, Westminster Station, Clear Creek & Federal Station, 60th and Sheridan Station have plenty of land and opportunity to build affordable housing and this is just one of six corridors.

The amount of land available in close-in neighborhoods like RiNo, Elyria-Swansea-Globeville, Sunnyside, Sun Valley(Mile High), Gates, Santa Fe Yards, and other areas is more than enough for many decades of added density and more affordable options.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

What are you basing this on? Why don't you start with LoopNet and see just how much land is available for sale. Then look at that land and see how it's zoned, it's parking requirements, overlays, etc.

Consider reading the above a couple of times; give it some time to soak in.

[The Dirt]

I'm looking for links to an article or a study, maybe some numbers.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I'm looking for links to an article or a study, maybe some numbers.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/06/30/ci...l#4993fd527606

But in the Texas housing markets that dominate our rankings, one of the factors contributing to the Sun Belt's affordability is the opportunity for metro area expansion, which creates an elastic housing market.

"As demand increases, supply is there to meet it," says Alan Berube, senior fellow in metropolitan policy at the Brookings Institution. "There are just not the same regulatory barriers for land development that you find in other places."

If you want to find the cheapest places to live within the city/county of Denver you should be able to easily search for that. You could also try Glendale, Northglenn whatever you wish.