Page 40 —
COLORADO REAL ESTATE JOURNAL
— May 18-May 31, 2016
Rocky Mountain Real Estate Challenge
by Jill Jamieson-Nichols
Who would win the 14th annu-
al NAIOP Rocky Mountain Real
Estate Challenge wasn’t clear
when judges finished their delib-
erations just prior to the April 28
event.
Was the University of Denver’s
pragmatic proposal for a mostly
residential community the best
scenario for the city of Westmin-
ster’s first transit-oriented devel-
opment site? Or were University
of Colorado graduate students
on track with an innovative plan
to bring community gardens and
indoor agriculture into their pro-
posed mixed-use community?
In the end, an unflappable
team from DU’s Franklin L.
Burns School of Real Estate and
Construction Management was
declared the winner. But it was
evident during the judging pro-
cess that each team’s proposal
had its merits and its faults and
that selecting a winner would be
no easy task.
The 800 commercial real estate
professionals, students and oth-
ers who attended the event at the
Denver Marriott City Center saw
only part of what goes into decid-
ing the outcome of the annual real
estate competition.
For those unfamiliar with the
NAIOP Rocky Mountain Real
Estate Challenge, presented by
Land Title Guarantee Co., CUand
DU grad students are asked to
act as developers of a preselected
site within the Denver metro area.
This year’s challenge was West-
minster Station TOD, a 21-acre
parcel on the west side of Fed-
eral Boulevard near 69th Avenue.
With commuter rail opening this
year, the site will be 11 minutes
nonstop from downtown Denver.
Student teams, which are
paired with architectural firms
that volunteer their resources,
compete internally to represent
their schools at the real estate chal-
lenge. This year’s directive was
for each team to: 1) create a pro-
posal directed toward a potential
equitypartner thatmeets the city’s
vision for the site, 2) develop a
market-driven plan that responds
to fundamentals in the real estate
market and capital markets, 3)
position the property tomaximize
developer risk-adjusted returns
and 4) realize the benefits of prox-
imity to the rail station.
Each team was required to pro-
vide a written proposal, pitch its
plan to a panel of judges, respond
to the judges’ questions during
the afternoon and then present
their proposals again to the audi-
ence at the evening event. Judges
debated eachproposal prior to the
evening session, individually sub-
mitting their final votes following
the audience presentations.
Judges include some of the best
minds in Denver commercial real
estate, and a behind-the-scenes
look at this year’s process dem-
onstrated they take the job quite
seriously. Charged with acting
as investors – and not “holding
back” – they scrutinized financial
analyses of both projects, expect-
ing students to explain how they
arrived at their returns, construc-
tion costs, etc. They wanted to
know why neither team chose to
incorporate tax-increment financ-
ing, how infrastructure would be
financed, why certain uses were
selected over others and more.
DU’s proposal, TheMosaic, was
residentially focused, including
affordable and market-rate apart-
ments, for-sale row homes, and
a 24 Hour Fitness and Sprouts
Farmers Market on Federal Bou-
levard. The plan included child
care and dog day care facilities,
a neighborhood restaurant, cof-
fee shop and reuse of an existing
warehouse as a new home for
TheBigWonderful marketplace.
The four-woman, two-man team
found no market demand for
office or multitenant retail, but left
flexibility for an office building
in a final phase of development,
shouldmarket conditions change.
W Station, CU’s proposal,
was mixed-use and agriculture
focused, with an agricultural and
craft marketplace; climbing gym;
live-work and market-rate apart-
ments; a healthy living center
with senior housing, a medical
office building, an urgent care
center, parking garage and com-
munity rooftop gardens; and an
Ag Tech Innovation Center that
would house a second, indoor
GrowHaus farm.
Genuinely impressed by both
proposals, judges generally
viewed DU’s plan as “safe” in
that it focused on product that
is in demand: residential. It was
pointed out, however, that put-
ting all one’s eggs in the residen-
tial basket may not be safe in the
long run, and there was a general
lack of enthusiasm about what
they felt was essentially a residen-
tial community.
CU’s proposal elicited excite-
ment among the judges, some
of whom said TOD sites should
be the kind of dynamic places
the team envisioned. Looking
at it as investors, though, they
had difficulty understanding the
very detailed financials, and some
couldn’t get beyondwhat they felt
were “unrealistic” returns. They
were impressed that the plan
reused several existing industrial
buildings on site.
With no clear consensus on
whichproposal tochoose–andno
expectation that students should
know what only on-the-job expe-
rience can provide – judges were
instructed to consider which plan
they could adapt, andwhich team
they would be most comfortable
investing with. Even then, there
was no unanimity.
Neither the judges nor audience
knew, until the formal announce-
ment by NAIOP Corporate
national President and CEO Tom
Bisacquino, that DU would take
first place.
While the RockyMountain Real
Estate Challenge currently ends
NAIOP photos by Susan English, Susan English Photography
Judges, from left, Mary Sullivan, Rick Wells and Becky Stone question students about their development proposals.
Karen Blumenstein and Jim Neenan listen to a student presentation.
by Jill Jamieson-Nichols
Rocky
Mountain
Real
Estate Challenge participants
wouldn’t trade the experi-
ence for anything, but they are
breathing a collective sigh of
relief.
The time it takes to prepare
a development proposal while
balancing full course loads and
jobs can seem overwhelming.
“Far and away, themost chal-
lenging aspect of the competi-
tion has been trying to balance
the demands of the competi-
tion with the demands of being
a full-time grad student,” said
Greg Miku-
lecky of the
University
of Denver.
“All of the
DU
stu-
dents have
a full course
load on top
of
every-
thing
the
competition
demands, and most of us have
jobs as well,” he said.
“Having to coordinate the
s chedu l e s
of our team
memb e r s ,
our archi-
t e c t u r a l
r e s o u r c e ,
deve l ope r
r e s o u r c e
and indus-
try profes-
sionals was
always chal-
lenging, especially considering
how little time we had to put
the whole project together,”
said Nathan Roberts of the
University of Colorado.
“It has been hard and at
times defeating, but as a team
we
have
learned so
much. We
know what
it is like to
work in a
fast-paced
e n v i r o n -
ment while
ba l an c i ng
life
and
other class-
es and commitments,” added
DU’s Kiki Boone.
Martha O’Connell, also of
the University of Denver, said,
“The experi-
ence earned
from being
able to work
on a realistic
project and
really get
into all of
the zoning,
f i n a n c i a l
and mar-
ket details
that go into a development
is unmatched in a university
environment.” Most beneficial
for students was being able
to work with so many indus-
try professionals: contractors,
developers, bankers, lawyers,
architects and others, she said.
Roberts agreed. “This expe-
rience has afforded me the
opportunity to learn from
experts in many different real
estate disciplines in a way that
is collaborative, supportive
and fun.
“Going forward, I think shar-
ing my team’s ideas, research,
how we approached the site
and case objectives is going to
be a great jumping off point
during any networking event
or interview. Most importantly,
I think the RMREC forced us to
draw upon the knowledge we
have gained from the entirety
of the MBA program and gave
us a great platform to show
to the whole community how
much we have learned.”
Although both teams were
focused on winning the
NAIOP Cup and taking home
the larger of two scholarships
from the Opus Foundation, it
was “more icing on the cake
than the goal,” said O’Connell.
“Through the life cycle of the
challenge, winning became less
of the focus. Instead, our team
just wanted to put together a
project we are all proud of and
passionate about. I think that
shift made the challenge more
enjoyable and exciting, and at
the end of the day gave us the
best opportunity to win,” Rob-
erts commented.
“DU has given me a lot, and
I feel that keeping the hard-
ware locked safely in our tro-
phy case is a good way to start
repaying that debt of grati-
tude,” added Mikulecky. “Per-
sonally, though, everything
I’ve learned and experienced
is mine to keep, win or lose,
and I’m incredibly proud of
our team and what we have
accomplished together.
“But I also can’t wait to get
my life back.”
DU’s team members were
Mikulecky, Boone, O’Connell,
Jamie Iuliano, Scott McDonald
and Katie Wear.
In addition to Roberts, CU’s
team comprised Jeff Hopfen-
beck, Robert Micsak, John
Heitmann, Jimmy Miner and
Melissa Ricksecker.
s
Greg Mikulecky
Martha O’Connell
Nathan Roberts
Kiki Boone
