DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

i'll counter with a question. how does tearing down the beautiful neighborhoods so you can move in benefit me as a land owning taxpayer? i'm paying a shitload in taxes only to have the envious renters tell me it's not enough? please.

Higher densities means more amenities, business and services to walk to. It means public transportation can become more robust. The land underneath your house would be worth more. You would have the satisfaction of knowing your neighborhood is addressing climate change and freeing people from expensive, exhausting commutes.

Economic status? No. You don’t know anything about my economic status besides the fact that I choose to rent. My point was that protecting miles and miles of tree lined streets is short sighted because it benefits a limited group of people for a short period of time, however we need to also consider future residents. Or people who currently have to live in a place like Thornton and endure a grueling commute, but who would be have a much higher quality of life if housing were built for them closer to work.

I don’t think the world owes me a downtown condo. It’s quite simple: I desire to live in a complete neighborhood, which in most of the world is just a normal neighborhood. I think being able to walk for most of your trips shouldn’t be a luxury. It's healthy, humane, pleasant, connects you to your community, and allows one to have a small carbon footprint. And it's how humans have lived throughout the world for most of history. In most of America, the only places that you could call complete are neighborhoods which were built prior to about the 1910s. Until major change comes to our zoning scheme in Denver, there is a fixed area of the city where this is possible. I think we need to change that by allowing complete neighborhoods throughout the city. And I think this will lead to less displacement of low income and vulnerable communities than the status quo of keeping homes in complete neighborhoods scarce.

This recent article touches on some of the hypocrisy of the current conversation about development in Denver: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/o...AUjxfO3bQIZnK8

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

It’s quite simple: I desire to live in a complete neighborhood, which in most of the world is just a normal neighborhood. I think being able to walk for most of your trips shouldn’t be a luxury. It's healthy, humane, pleasant, connects you to your community, and allows one to have a small carbon footprint. And it's how humans have lived throughout the world for most of history. In most of America, the only places that you could call complete are neighborhoods which were built prior to about the 1910s. Until major change comes to our zoning scheme in Denver, there is a fixed area of the city where this is possible. I think we need to change that by allowing complete neighborhoods throughout the city. And I think this will lead to less displacement of low income and vulnerable communities than the status quo of keeping homes in complete neighborhoods scarce.

Beautifully stated.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

This recent article touches on some of the hypocrisy of the current conversation about development in Denver: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/o...AUjxfO3bQIZnK8

I'm gonna respect your point of view. It would be hypocritical of me not to, primarily because "I've been there done that."

That NYT piece is well written in many respects. If you go back 50 years you could read similar articles primarily focused on Haight Ashbury; songs song by the Grateful Dead and Janis Joplin until her own heroin OD took her life. So after 50 years and untold millions of $'s the homeless problem still exists. In fact it's gotten even worse. My guess is there's a strong correlation between growth in the number of homeless and the growth in population, density of housing and density of office towers.

Farhad Manjoo makes assumption after assumption after assumption, all of which are questionable and worthy of debate and some of which are obviously miss-guided.

As much as Denver has grown, I'd venture to guess the difference in scale to San Francisco is much the same as it was 50 years ago. The biggest difference is that every time there's an IPO (initial public offering) of a tech Unicorn many hundreds of people become instant millionaires. It's their reward for hard work and buying the right lottery ticket. You can't compare the two places.

[TakeFive]

So the Plot Thickens

Giellis Accuses Hancock Of ‘Cover Up’ In DIA Project

I should add that when I watched the First Debate I had a couple of different impressions. When I put on my 'white' or neutral hat I felt like Jamie Giellis was more empathetic which could easily appeal to those who have been feeling frustrated.

Otherwise I know nothing.

[JB1530]

Originally Posted by awholeparade

A majority of that was all built before design standards went into place.

Are they in place? I was told very recently - by someone who ought to know - that, while they've been drafted, they're sitting on a shelf waiting to be implemented.

Happy to be proven wrong here as RiNo is much more your sphere of influence than it is mine, but I have a great deal of respect for the individual that told me the above, and don't believe he has any incentive to not tell the truth.

[mishko27]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Higher densities means more amenities, business and services to walk to. It means public transportation can become more robust. The land underneath your house would be worth more. You would have the satisfaction of knowing your neighborhood is addressing climate change and freeing people from expensive, exhausting commutes.

Economic status? No. You don’t know anything about my economic status besides the fact that I choose to rent. My point was that protecting miles and miles of tree lined streets is short sighted because it benefits a limited group of people for a short period of time, however we need to also consider future residents. Or people who currently have to live in a place like Thornton and endure a grueling commute, but who would be have a much higher quality of life if housing were built for them closer to work.

I don’t think the world owes me a downtown condo. It’s quite simple: I desire to live in a complete neighborhood, which in most of the world is just a normal neighborhood. I think being able to walk for most of your trips shouldn’t be a luxury. It's healthy, humane, pleasant, connects you to your community, and allows one to have a small carbon footprint. And it's how humans have lived throughout the world for most of history. In most of America, the only places that you could call complete are neighborhoods which were built prior to about the 1910s. Until major change comes to our zoning scheme in Denver, there is a fixed area of the city where this is possible. I think we need to change that by allowing complete neighborhoods throughout the city. And I think this will lead to less displacement of low income and vulnerable communities than the status quo of keeping homes in complete neighborhoods scarce.

This recent article touches on some of the hypocrisy of the current conversation about development in Denver: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/o...AUjxfO3bQIZnK8

An enthusiastic YAAAS to all of this.

I am Eastern European. Not the "my parents moved here when I was 1" kind, but the "I was born and raised in Slovakia, and I moved stateside at the age of 20" kind. While I have a soft spot in my heart for Communist Brutalism because of couple of architecturally amazing and immensely interesting buildings, you won't hear me defend the Communists for what they've done to our cities.

They destroyed historical neighborhoods and they build some horrible low-cost buildings. But man, did they manage to address growth, create walkable neighborhoods (out of necessity, they could not produce enough cars), and build cities around public transportation.

Just take a look at Košice, a city of 60,000 people in 1950 which grew to 202,000 in just 30 years. I have lived there for years, never requiring a car. Every housing estate (regardless if we're talking about commie blocks, smaller 5 story buildings, or detached homes) had shopping, bars, schools, and other amenities within walking distance, while providing public transit connection to the employment centers.

I miss the European lifestyle. Living by Buckley in Aurora is far from perfect, but I can walk to multiple schools, 2 shopping centers are located within a 20 minute walk, I am relatively close to breweries, etc. It's not the European urban experience, that's for sure, but give me a tram running up and down Illiff or Mississippi that would connect to the R line and you'd be pretty close...

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Farhad Manjoo makes assumption after assumption after assumption, all of which are questionable and worthy of debate and some of which are obviously miss-guided.

Such as? Give me an example? What is misguided?

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Couple of things:

There's a difference with using 'you' as a personal pronoun and using 'you' as an impersonal pronoun. One is personal while other is intended generally. My use was intended as general or impersonal. I hoped that would be obvious enough.

and I hope that all you boomers die horribly in a vat of boiling oil, so that the younger generations can begin the process of fixing the Earth after your generation of "I, me, mine" royally screwed it up for us. See how benign all of my statements are when I use the word "you" in an impersonal way?

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

This recent article touches on some of the hypocrisy of the current conversation about development in Denver: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/o...AUjxfO3bQIZnK8

Damn that NYT article was a hit job on the word 'Progressive'. It should read ONLY progressives have a plan to tackle the housing crisis because they don't take money from housing developers, and are not influenced by wealthy voters that hold much of their equity in real estate.

In SF at least, a lot of the problem is that home owners have the ability to sue a development that would impact their homes view plane and lower its value. If the ability to sue developers to protect your houses view of the GG bridge was outlawed, billions of $ of new houses would go up immediately.

[fleury]

Originally Posted by mishko27

An enthusiastic YAAAS to all of this.

I am Eastern European. Not the "my parents moved here when I was 1" kind, but the "I was born and raised in Slovakia, and I moved stateside at the age of 20" kind. While I have a soft spot in my heart for Communist Brutalism because of couple of architecturally amazing and immensely interesting buildings, you won't hear me defend the Communists for what they've done to our cities.

They destroyed historical neighborhoods and they build some horrible low-cost buildings. But man, did they manage to address growth, create walkable neighborhoods (out of necessity, they could not produce enough cars), and build cities around public transportation.

Just take a look at Košice, a city of 60,000 people in 1950 which grew to 202,000 in just 30 years. I have lived there for years, never requiring a car. Every housing estate (regardless if we're talking about commie blocks, smaller 5 story buildings, or detached homes) had shopping, bars, schools, and other amenities within walking distance, while providing public transit connection to the employment centers.

I miss the European lifestyle. Living by Buckley in Aurora is far from perfect, but I can walk to multiple schools, 2 shopping centers are located within a 20 minute walk, I am relatively close to breweries, etc. It's not the European urban experience, that's for sure, but give me a tram running up and down Illiff or Mississippi that would connect to the R line and you'd be pretty close...

I also grew up in Europe, moved from Brussels Belgium to Denver back in 07. While I don't think Denver is perfect, and I think there is room for massive growth and densification - I do think that our neighborhoods and what little historic architecture we have is worth saving. Denver is not dense by any means...there are empty lots scattered all over the city. There are massive areas of industrial land immediately adjacent to downtown. Parking lots the size of cities themselves...think broncos stadium, pepsi center, elitch gardens. We could triple the population of Denver without tearing a single building down. What I don't understand is hearing people from Denver talk about ripping down what makes it a lovely city when it doesn't seem necessary. Seems a little premature if you ask me. Brussels densified its core in the 70's....ripped down a ton of historic buildings to do so. Its a bit of a sore spot on our history. Those buildings replaced well built buildings 100's of years old, now they are coming down themselves due to poor construction / lack of aesthetic.

Theres nothing wrong with historic districts within our city. They make the city a more interesting place to live - create a tourist draw. Its cultural and pleasant. Arapahoe square looks like Dresden after WWII...concentrate our development there. Fill in the tracts of unused land along the Platte river. Enhance the river and embrace it. A very American response is "rip it down, build it new". Why not just leave whats well done alone and infill where there are gaps?

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I wish that the ocean of parking lots near 19th and Broadway goes away sometime in my lifetime. There are two nearby light rail stops. Our skyline and downtown density could dramatically increase if those lots were used more effectively.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by fleury

Theres nothing wrong with historic districts within our city. They make the city a more interesting place to live - create a tourist draw. Its cultural and pleasant. Arapahoe square looks like Dresden after WWII...concentrate our development there. Fill in the tracts of unused land along the Platte river. Enhance the river and embrace it. A very American response is "rip it down, build it new". Why not just leave whats well done alone and infill where there are gaps?

There's no real argument against that. Though I would caution against looking at every industrial district and proposing that it be redeveloped as RiNo has. You end up losing the older industrial options that provide space for startups that don't involve two bros, a couple MacBooks, and a coffee shop. Plus you encourage further congestion due to all of those delivery trucks being pushed out further and having to drive that much more to get back in. Denver shouldn't just be composed of a downtown, single family streetcar neighborhoods, and douche-centric areas like RiNo.

But should every single streetcar neighborhood, hell every neighborhood composed primarily of single family homes, be statically preserved as it is without an attempt to introduce some density into them? Congress Park is certainly beautiful and desirable, but I don't think that it has achieved it's full potential and won't as long as it remains so constricted by the zoning that we have in place city-wide. Nor is this static nature necessarily good for the city as whole as it causes artificial scarcity of housing stock and also breeds resentment towards development as the only replacement of an existing house is an even larger house that is well out of the character of the neighborhood. Let's open up our zoning a bit and allow duplexes and four-plexes back into these neighborhoods so that instead of just having $800K bungalows, $900K Denver squares, and $1.3M McMansions we can also get $300K condos and other sub $500K options. Include design review and lot limitations if that's what it takes to increase the zoning while preserving neighborhood character.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

and I hope that all you boomers die horribly in a vat of boiling oil, so that the younger generations can begin the process of fixing the Earth after your generation of "I, me, mine" royally screwed it up for us. See how benign all of my statements are when I use the word "you" in an impersonal way?

Perhaps I was mistaken that in using an 'old fashioned' funny (to me) term that no one would take offense, especially since I went on to promote the livelihoods of a class of working stiffs.

But at least I didn't wish for the demise of a whole class of people.
Actually I found this funny. What parent hasn't heard much the same general protestation (sometimes hateful sounding) from their own (non-senior) teenage kids when told they can't go to the after-prom all-night drunken blowout? "Everybody else will be there. I'll be the only one who can't go." Uh huh; life's not fair, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Such as? Give me an example? What is misguided?

Out of energy for any new endless and circular arguments but I'll give a couple of more general examples.

If the City of Denver, in it's collective wisdom wanted to scrape every last corner of history in order to erect shiny new tenements, then they should be allowed to do this. The state shouldn't come along and tell cities what they can and can't do unless there's a compelling state interest reason.

Starting with the Great Recession Arizona elected a whole bunch of (social) conservative loony tunes who proceeded to pass some of the silliest 'laws' one could imagine, just because they could. For example, telling cities that they couldn't spend their own tax money as incentives to revitalize blighted areas. Or how 'bout passing a law that allowed for 'religious freedom' - code for allowing the legal discrimination of gays. Or the State telling cities they can't use red light/speeding cameras. Or the state imposing zoning on cities because after all they know what's best Always and Forever.

Off Topic: The richest 10% of households now represent 70% of all U.S. wealth

[SnyderBock]

I think what it comes down too is prejudice. People living in 800k bungalows and 1.2m McMansions do not want people who can only afford a 300k condo living next door or down the street from them. They think people in that economic class are trashy and will trash their neighborhood. That is what they really mean when they say "preserve the character of the neighborhood." They want their neighbors to all be in their economic class. They want their children's schools to not have poor kids bringing undisciplined habits and drugs around. They want fully funded PTO's to make sure their schools have all the nice athletic facilities, etc...

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

I think what it comes down too is prejudice. People living in 800k bungalows and 1.2m McMansions do not want people who can only afford a 300k condo living next door or down the street from them. They think people in that economic class are trashy and will trash their neighborhood. That is what they really mean when they say "preserve the character of the neighborhood." They want their neighbors to all be in their economic class. They want their children's schools to not have poor kids bringing undisciplined habits and drugs around. They want fully funded PTO's to make sure their schools have all the nice athletic facilities, etc...

That’s nonsense. Also, f* you. You don’t live here or have the slightest clue who the demographic is building $1.2M McMansions in Denver. That’s me, I’m building one of those right now. That’s $5k/month, which is actually about as good as a person can hope for with a couple kids in the city. And I would - and do - welcome $300k condos up and down the street. So as I said, f* you.

[bunt_q]

dp

[ams5280]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You don’t live here or have the slightest clue who the demographic is building $1.2M McMansions in Denver. That’s me, I’m building one of those right now. That’s $5k/month, which is actually about as good as a person can hope for with a couple kids in the city. And I would - and do - welcome $300k condos up and down the street. So as I said, f* you.

Yeah, just gonna throw it out there that I have a way bigger problem with $1.2m scrape McMansions in Denver than I do with a 30-story building in a single-family neighborhood. Thank you for confirming.

[ams5280]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

As much as Denver has grown, I'd venture to guess the difference in scale to San Francisco is much the same as it was 50 years ago.

Denver grew 649% between 1870 and 1880, and continued to grow 200% over the following decade. If Denver grew at a rate of around 20%, it has had a similar or greater rate of growth for nearly half it's existence. The failure to accommodate growth speaks to a policy failure, as it has in California.

And California's housing crisis has tentacles. How much of Colorado population growth is due to direct inmigration from CA and TX transplants fleeing rising costs due, either in CA or in TX due to people moving there from CA? The same could be said of NV and the pacific northwest - California plays a role. Just like the emigration of Denverites/Coloradans fleeing rising costs contributing to rising home prices in Weld County/Montana respectively.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by ams5280

Denver grew 649% between 1870 and 1880, and continued to grow 200% over the following decade. If Denver grew at a rate of around 20%, it has had a similar or greater rate of growth for nearly half it's existence. The failure to accommodate growth speaks to a policy failure, as it has in California.

And California's housing crisis has tentacles. How much of Colorado population growth is due to direct inmigration from CA and TX transplants fleeing rising costs due, either in CA or in TX due to people moving there from CA? The same could be said of NV and the pacific northwest - California plays a role. Just like the emigration of Denverites/Coloradans fleeing rising costs contributing to rising home prices in Weld County/Montana respectively.

Do tell what was the policy change "failure" that created today's dilemma that is Denver?

Not interested in going back to 1870 but I'll go back to 1970. There was NO problem creating all the entry level housing that could be absorbed back in the 1st half of the 1970's. Same for the 1st half of the 1980's; in fact they created so much housing that Denver ended up with thousands of empty homes (aided by the O&G bust of course). In the 1st half of the 2000's Denver didn't need or add much housing due to the Tech Market bust which arrived late to Denver via the communications industry. Jump to 2009/10; there was no housing shortage in Denver in the midst of the Great Recession.

The brightest spot in Denver was downtown. As Ken has pointed out in less than 20 years downtown went from 5,000 residents to over 25,000 residents. Even in 2013 as downtown growth was accelerating it still wasn't all that expensive except for the new buildings pushing rents higher.

In essence all the panic that everybody is feeling happened within the last five/six years. So what policy change was made that created this because it wasn't a problem in any decade previous to the last 6 years?

Yes, California now has the 5th largest GDP in the World and has served as an incubator and stimulant for most of the country. Btw, the cost of new homes in Texas, Arizona and Nevada are ~two-thirds of what it is in Denver. What's the difference in policies between Colorado and Texas, Arizona and Nevada?

Ya think maybe there might be market forces that have little or nothing to with policy that created the current panic? Obviously, Denver couldn't keep up with the permitting demand for several years. Is that the policy change you're talking about?

In terms of real estate time 5/6 years is short. It may be that 6 years from now things could be much different.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That’s nonsense. Also, f* you. You don’t live here or have the slightest clue who the demographic is building $1.2M McMansions in Denver. That’s me, I’m building one of those right now. That’s $5k/month, which is actually about as good as a person can hope for with a couple kids in the city. And I would - and do - welcome $300k condos up and down the street. So as I said, f* you.

I was thinking about my nephew who added a 2nd level to his older home in Wash Park. Before they could pop the top they had to reinforce the foundation. They also dug down a few feet to make the basement area more usable. I forget his specific model/size but I guessed he might have spent $500K for adding maybe a 1,000 Sq Ft plus all the other work. That was in ~2010. I can't even imagine the difference to today's land and construction costs.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by ams5280

Yeah, just gonna throw it out there that I have a way bigger problem with $1.2m scrape McMansions in Denver than I do with a 30-story building in a single-family neighborhood. Thank you for confirming.

You’d prefer folks move to the burbs? I would like a 4br/3ba home, someplace south of downtown, as central as I can afford it. Run that search on realtor, and there are no options that make more economic sense than tearing down the current piece of junk 2br/1ba house and building here. It’s cheaper, and I get what I want. 1,300 sf floor plate, 2 story house, that’s the math - around $1 million. That’s not a McMansion, that’s just a house. A house for an adult (which I recognize most folks on here are not).

[Not many 4-5 person families living in condos in the U.S., we just don’t build them that way here. Not that I’d be opposed if that was the form our cities took. When we build multifamily, we do it in hipster bro ghettos surrounded by bars, not in neighborhoods with dry cleaners.]