DENVER | Main Development Thread #7 - Page 413

DenvertoLA · #**8241** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 7:14 PM**

Does anyone have the new jailbreak for bizjournals ? Mine stopped working when trying to read this article.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2020/02/06/denver-condo-development-rebound.html

TakeFive · #**8242** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Does anyone have the new jailbreak for bizjournals ? Mine stopped working when trying to read this article.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2020/02/06/denver-condo-development-rebound.html

If you're using the same one I posted some time ago, I'm suffering the same fate. The good news is that only occasionally do they use this format for feature articles; otherwise the work-around still works fine.

tommyboy733 · #**8243** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 7:35 PM**

I'm lean towards agreeing with mojiferous and wong21fr.

I think there could be some improvements to vehicle circulation using the alleys. I don't like have 5-10 driveways crossing the sidewalk one one block, but I'm fine with the architecture and certainly like the density.

As for Sandoval "They can turn it all into residential.... From 44th north to 46th, a lot of the retail has been wiped out"

That's just simply not true, here's an aerial image from 2013 vs. September 2019.... the commercial is in red, none of the buildings have been removed, can't speak for the businesses/tenants themselves. Maybe some vacated. But only shitting old houses have demolished for these new new buildings.

[IMG]

before and after[/IMG]

"and so what I’ve been working on with the Regis Berkley United Neighbors, which is the registered neighborhood organization for this area, is what’s called an active street use overlay, which would require retail or active street use along the Tennyson corridor.”

Doesn't Main Street MS zoning require ground floor retail vs general MX - Mixed use? I would have preferred more ground floor retail, seems this entire corridor should have been MS instead of MX.

wong21fr · #**8244** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Not according to Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval

You don't know this are very well do you? Probably a bit hard to walk it on Google Maps from Arizona.

mojiferous is absolutely correct that there is more walkable retail along the Tennyson corridor now than there was 10-15 years ago. Councilwoman Sandoval is correct that several retail spots closed down along 44th to 46th over the same period. But, the retail center of gravity of Tennyson is from 38th to 42nd and the retail that Sandoval is referring too wasn't quite as glamorous (i.e. yuppie white) and was more service oriented. But it certainly isn't as if dozens of retailers along this two-block stretch are gone and replaced by dozens of slot homes. More like a dozen houses and a half dozen businesses have been replaced by dozens of slot homes.

She has a valid point on whether development should have been required to have ground-floor retail. It would have benefited Tennyson more to extend the retail corridor along with adding more residents and would have also have prevented all of the slot homes from popping up there. But that was a zoning decision and I bet there was probably some old fogies bitching about potential new retail and losing their god-given street parking. So instead they ended up with slot home heaven.

twister244 · #**8245** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 7:39 PM**

As a Jeff Park resident, I have mixed feelings about "slot homes". Not all of them look horrific.... Some in my neighborhood don't look half bad. Others? Yeah, they look like crap. I think it just depends on the developer. I do like what is happening near 25th/Elliot. There's a new development that has slots, but ground floor mixed used facing the street. The building looks absolutely horrendous, but it will offer the neighborhood new options for retail/restaurants/etc. There's a new development across the street (behind my building) that just broke ground that accomplishes the same goals but looks nicer per the renderings.

I totally get wanting to make sure we ensure quality to a degree. But... as others have said, we continue to maintain a housing shortage... so we kinda need to also make sure we accommodate that demand. There's no reason to suggest Denver won't continue to be a very attractive place to live for all walks of life.

DenvertoLA · #**8246** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

If you're using the same one I posted some time ago, I'm suffering the same fate. The good news is that only occasionally do they use this format for feature articles; otherwise the work-around still works fine.

I am, that was clutch

TakeFive · #**8247** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You don't know this are very well do you? Probably a bit hard to walk it on Google Maps from Arizona.

I resemble that and I'm happy to rely on the person that both grew up in the neighborhood and is now raising her own family there.

You do a drive-by and suddenly you're an expert.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Councilwoman Sandoval is correct that several retail spots closed down along 44th to 46th over the same period. But the retail that Sandoval is referring too wasn't quite as glamorous (i.e. yuppie white) and was more service oriented.

Yes, I can easily recall this area being a fun place to stop and shop. Did so many times. I also realize that change is happening.

For the record, the last time we cycled through this topic, I specifically called for the area between Sheridan and a street or two east of Tennyson should allow mid-rise development as apposed to restricting it to 'missing middle' units - just as I did for Curtis Park (with qualifications).

coolmandan03 · #**8248** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

...[/URL]

Checkout this extension on Firefox

https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox

TakeFive · #**8249** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 8:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

Checkout this extension on Firefox

https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox

I assume (but don't know) that this has to be used with firefox browser just as the one I had posted was specifically written for Chrome?

Interzen · #**8250** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I assume (but don't know) that this has to be used with firefox browser just as the one I had posted was specifically written for Chrome?

Try this: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome

CherryCreek · #**8251** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 9:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Personally, I do think building homes for people is far more important than aesthetics. I don’t believe design overlays or review boards are the answer either; they’ll add more costs, delays, and will end up meaning less housing built overall. That’s great for the already wealthy who want to live in a museum city and can afford to, but that’s not a city I want to live in. I’d rather live in a dense, walkable city where the middle and working classes can afford to live in a complete neighborhood.

The reality is that aesthetics matter, and developers coming into a cool historic neighborhood and taking a dump on it with poorly conceived/designed/built turds fans the flames of NIMBYism and makes it hard to win the argument for greater density and for making more urban housing available to more people.

People wanting into an area can complain all they want about restrictions on growth and/or on density, but it's current residents - particular property owners who are much more likely to vote, give money to politicians, and be active in politics who will have sway with public officials. Because of some of some of the abortions built in the The Tennyson corridor, avoiding that elsewhere has become somewhat of rallying cry and likely has grown support for NIMBYism policies.

DenvertoLA · #**8252** Posted **Feb 6, 2020, 10:01 PM**

got it working thanks

FunctionForm · #**8253** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 4:18 AM**

I agree. If someone told me they were going to build that on my corner, I'd say over my dead body. But, I think the City needs to bear some culpability for outcomes like this. Why would we allow that kind of street frontage with absolutely no set back or landscaping requirement? If there was required space, let's just randomly say 4 feet, for landscaping in addition to the sidewalk, the buffer might actually make it a desirable corner.

I see some of these renderings for proposals downtown and just laugh at the tree lined streets depicted.

SirLucasTheGreat · #**8254** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 4:50 AM**

Which Denver neighborhood do you guys believe is currently the most desirable to live in and which one are you most excited to see develop?

DenvertoLA · #**8255** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 7:00 AM**

In my opinion I think Union Station has a few more years of being the new shiny object and will hold desirability. Then I predict the attention will shift to Arapahoe Square because of its vicinity to big place making developments (Milk Market, Mcgregor Square, Market Station, and all of Union Station.)

We already see a clumping of large residential proposals in Arapahoe Square. I wouldn't be surprised if 2 or more proposals in that same area pop up in the coming year.

Change my mind though

RyanD · #**8256** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 1:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Which Denver neighborhood do you guys believe is currently the most desirable to live in and which one are you most excited to see develop?

Core: Arapahoe Square

North: RiNo, North Wynkoop, Stock Show

South: Golden Triangle

West-ish: The first few River Mile developments

East: Sherman Street re-zone projects, connecting Uptown to Downtown is a huge priority in that area, imo.

There are a lot of neighborhoods that are seeing growth that keeps getting better from a design and density standpoint. Those projects is AS on Lawrence and Arapahoe will really start kicking things off there, at least I hope so.

I'd rather see it everywhere versus just gangbusters on one neighborhood like DUS. Having a solid connection from Downtown to Uptown, Golden Triangle, AS, and RiNo would be amazing.

SirLucasTheGreat · #**8257** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 2:31 PM**

I'm certainly excited to see all of the car storage in Arapahoe Square give way to more sensible uses.

I think that all of the northwest part of the downtown/downtown-adjacent area is currently the best developed part of Denver (LoDo, Union Station, Confluence Park, Platte Street, LoHi). These areas are all highly active with a mix of uses, recreation, and transit connectivity.

I'm interested to see how much truly develops at the Gates District and Santa Fe yards part of town. If all of that comes to fruition (Gates District, Santa Fe Yards, Santa Fe Residential, East Vanderbilt Park), that could become a nice midtown with the river, the park, Broadway Station, and hopefully some decent retail.

As far as mixed-use areas are concerned, I think Cherry Creek has really improved in it's walkability although I wish there were better transit options. Although outside of the core, I'm still pretty excited for 9th and Colorado. They will have pretty decent residential density along with some good restaurants, a park, and a movie theater.

RyanD · #**8258** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

As far as mixed-use areas are concerned, I think Cherry Creek has really improved in it's walkability although I wish there were better transit options.

My 'Cherry on Top' gondola idea will fix that.

SirLucasTheGreat · #**8259** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanD

My 'Cherry on Top' gondola idea will fix that.

I'd be interested in that. I'm also curious how well a BRT might function on that corridor if it followed all the way down through Glendale, Aurora, Cherry Creek State Park, and Parker. It seems pretty high density the whole way through.

wong21fr · #**8260** Posted **Feb 7, 2020, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunctionForm

I agree. If someone told me they were going to build that on my corner, I'd say over my dead body. But, I think the City needs to bear some culpability for outcomes like this. Why would we allow that kind of street frontage with absolutely no set back or landscaping requirement? If there was required space, let's just randomly say 4 feet, for landscaping in addition to the sidewalk, the buffer might actually make it a desirable corner.

I see some of these renderings for proposals downtown and just laugh at the tree lined streets depicted.

I blame the city most of all for that project. The other project on the west side of Tennyson had the 4 foot setback and is far more inviting, but was built before the zoning code overhaul. This one was a major dud as far as setbacks go which drives the landscaping as well. Off to look at the zoning rules to see what happened regarding lot lines and setbacks.

The meters are less of egregious design flaw IMO that can be addressed by such sexy things as a mural.