HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8421  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 5:00 PM
laniroj laniroj is offline
[sub]urbanite
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post

...Now that Minneapolis got what they wanted and they're the toast of the whole country, many are now acknowledging the fallacies and weaknesses with their supposed magical fix. What has become the "hot topic generic up-zoning fix" isn't working and isn't expected to achieve what they promised. At best it will add a few upscale options here and there but nothing approaching affordable units...
I'm just curious if you thought the legislative change would have immediate affect? Oh yea, in one year all our problems will be solved. You are better than that TakeFive. Zoning changes take many years to make an impact. It's probably a little short sighted to think that 14 months after legislation is passed that Minneapolis has already instituted the policy, the units have been built, and the impact is happening...can't win with some folks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8422  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 6:06 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldurhamer View Post
the reality is that you don't know what you're talking about. there's no evidence at all that a massive upzone will help poor people at all. in fact, minneapolis is starting to realize they totally fucked up and have done nothing to address displacement.


https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2019/...y-in-the-city/
This article was published less than six months after the zoning change and clearly states that the upzoning will take decades to make an impact. Even the studies that are mentioned in the article talk about upzoning as a long-term impact initiative. The other part of the article discussing affordability for the poor goes for the tried and true trope of more, more, more public funding of affordable housing. The same thing your crush Candi keeps on pushing for.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8423  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 6:29 PM
laniroj laniroj is offline
[sub]urbanite
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 192
Fox Station Active?

Is a project in the works at Fox Station? I get an error message when looking up this PM permit code...but that site sold later last year...

2019PM0000614
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8424  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 6:33 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
So as Stapleton has built out and more housing units were added each year did it become more and more affordable or less affordable?

And there's the fallacy of a simplistic view of supply and demand.
Has it been that long since you took an ECO101 course or were you just stoned the entire time during your undergrad (I realize it was the late 60's and you don't seem like a ROTC product)? You're ignoring the demand side of the supply curve not to mention your definition of supply is inadequate and way too constrained.


Regardless, the supply of homes provided by Stapleton over the last ~20 years will be enough for about 30K people. Given that Denver will grow by about ~185K from 2000 to 2020, Stapleton will have accounted for about 16% of that growth in a land area that is 5% of the city. Remove that development from any supply model and you'd almost certainly see an upward pressure on the price equilibrium.

Quote:
Had Stapleton been required to include 25% designated affordable housing then at least it would have 25% affordable housing but it didn't require that and it doesn't have that.
Stapleton is required to have 10% designated affordable housing both as rental and as for-sale. So about 900 affordable for-sale and 500 rentals at buildout in the next 5 years.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein


Last edited by wong21fr; Feb 17, 2020 at 6:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8425  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 6:47 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Land in the urban core is expensive (rising at double-figure percentage rates per year apparently). That's related to a lack of supply.
I suspect it's hard to be relevant or knowlegible about cities you're not familiar.

Generally, to the west and north of the CBD was industrial which became brown fields. Going back ~15 years the first area to be reclaimed and redeveloped into relatively dense residential was Commons Park.

The next area of brownfield to be reclaimed started with the $450 million Denver Union Station. The defined neighborhood was divided into Block A, Block B etc. The timing was perfect for TOD. This area developed out in warp speed with generally 10 to 15-story buildings of all types.

To the west of downtown across the freeway is the Highlands an old generally historical housing area. The eastern part, the area between Federal Blvd and the freeway is known as LoHi; more of a mixed bag it has seen substantial redevelopment into primarily mixed density residential which continues. Part of LoHi crosses the freeway toward downtown. This has become primarily an area of niche office space with strong appeal.

Down the hill from Coors Field lies the original RiNo area; lots of wholesale fruit and vegetables etc. Redevelopment started as an industrial chic area and has morphed into lots of medium-high density residential. This 'reclaimed' area is roughly 4 blocks by 12 blocks and currently it's ~one-third developed. Then 3 more blocks on the other side of the tracks were redefined as also part of RiNo. Roughly 3 blocks by 15 blocks this mixed use and eclectic area is maybe 25% redeveloped.

Scarcity is a relative term and in Denver's Urban Core the amount of land has grown dramatically over the last 15 years. Also consider I've only highlighted maybe 40% of the area for what was once the unloved periphery. There's still room for decades of redevelopment. Is the area subject to escalating land costs? Does a bear shit in the woods?
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8426  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 6:49 PM
The Dirt's Avatar
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Ground Scraper
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by laniroj View Post
You are better than that TakeFive.
No he's not. He thinks that his armchair quarterbacking is just as legitimate as your, Cirrus', and mhays' professional opinions. He's basically a climate denier for housing. The narrative is the same: housing scarcity isn't happening... er, it's real, but it's just natural and not caused by regulation... well the majority of professionals are just claiming scarcity because of greed... if you read this one article that supports my views you can ignore all of vast amounts of data that refutes my views... uhh, people that believe that there's a housing crunch are just developer shills or part of the Streetsblog cult.
__________________
"That emoticon is the most foolish thing you have posted in this whole thread full of foolish statements." - Cirrus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8427  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 7:21 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by laniroj View Post
I'm just curious if you thought the legislative change would have immediate affect? Oh yea, in one year all our problems will be solved. You are better than that TakeFive. Zoning changes take many years to make an impact. It's probably a little short sighted to think that 14 months after legislation is passed that Minneapolis has already instituted the policy, the units have been built, and the impact is happening...can't win with some folks.
Thanks for reading. I understand the timing here but perhaps you missed the study of Chicago which changed their zoning in 2013 and 2015 so that's 5 to 7 years of history. Perhaps if you had read the whole linked piece you'd have a more realistic assessment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dirt View Post
No he's not. He thinks that his armchair quarterbacking is just as legitimate as your, Cirrus', and mhays' professional opinions.
Very fair point.

Yes, just because some MBA nerds come up with a good-sounding theory in order to justify their existence and their agenda then they must be right.

Fun fact. Cops who take eye-witness accounts of the suspect to a crime often come with wildly different descriptions. So it's not uncommon to have different views and there's no harm in agreeing to disagree.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8428  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 7:37 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Thanks for reading. I understand the timing here but perhaps you missed the study of Chicago which changed their zoning in 2013 and 2015 so that's 5 to 7 years of history. Perhaps if you had read the whole linked piece you'd have a more realistic assessment.
Was that a citywide upzoning or just a few neighborhoods? Just wondering if you'd care to pontificate.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8429  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 7:42 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
Was that a citywide upzoning or just a few neighborhoods? Just wondering if you'd care to pontificate.
Specific neighborhoods and was studied by MIT doctoral candidate Yonah Freemark an avowed urbanist.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8430  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 8:01 PM
twister244 twister244 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Thanks for reading. I understand the timing here but perhaps you missed the study of Chicago which changed their zoning in 2013 and 2015 so that's 5 to 7 years of history. Perhaps if you had read the whole linked piece you'd have a more realistic assessment.
It's worth noting Chicago is a bit of an anomaly in terms of large urban areas in America these days. Their population has been stagnant (even slightly declining) with a huge public debt burden that has lead to increased local taxes, etc. Might not be a good comparison.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8431  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 8:07 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by twister244 View Post
It's worth noting Chicago is a bit of an anomaly in terms of large urban areas in America these days. Their population has been stagnant (even slightly declining) with a huge public debt burden that has lead to increased local taxes, etc. Might not be a good comparison.
Which is a caveat that the author included as well (i.e. the context of the study). He also mentioned something about neighborhood area versus metropolitan area upzonings and the differences on the two.

But, hey, who's actually reading any of this crap that gets posted? Better to write paragraph after paragraph of meandering prose.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein


Last edited by wong21fr; Feb 17, 2020 at 8:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8432  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 8:18 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,811
A lot of our problems, thread-wise, is that there are many overlapping issues that get easily conflated. Adding clarity would be useful.

First there is differing levels of development. We've discussed adding the missing middle; we've discussed adding medium density in existing residential neighborhoods where current zoning won't allow it. Except it's already being done here and there so even I get confused. Obviously one could add a mix of missing middle and medium density.

There's also specific areas where medium to high density is expected to occur.

Would adding density of any type accommodate additional growth and demand? Yes, of course it would. But adding density won't necessarily go hand in hand with being affordable. For highly desirable areas (or areas likely to become highly desirable) with new allowed development of upscale housing, affordability will be an oxymoron.

Curtis Park, for example, is is not a large area. If you add medium density as apposed to missing middle then presumably due to product type it will be more affordable than merely adding missing middle. This is all common sense but whatever density could be added in Curtis Park is highly unlikely to be considered affordable, at least by most people.

The way to get the most affordable bang for your buck has been better articulated by bunt.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8433  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 8:20 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by twister244 View Post
It's worth noting Chicago is a bit of an anomaly in terms of large urban areas in America these days. Their population has been stagnant (even slightly declining) with a huge public debt burden that has lead to increased local taxes, etc. Might not be a good comparison.
Totally agree outside of the fact the the urban center has been hotter than a firecracker and (many neighborhoods) would be very comparable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
Better to write paragraph after paragraph of meandering prose.
Speaking of meandering...
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8434  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 8:29 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Totally agree outside of the fact the the urban center has been hotter than a firecracker and (many neighborhoods) would be very comparable.
But those weren't the neighborhoods that were in the study, were they?

Perhaps you might want to admit that you didn't read the paper that is being discussed just yet? Gazed over for an ever so brief summation? Certainly. But having actually read it in depth? Such a claim would be pretty dubious.

An interesting takeaway from the paper is that the market (current and prospective owners) of the properties affected by the upzoning responded almost immediately to the market signal as indicated by the increased value of the land reflecting it's now higher use. However, construction of addition housing supply took a lot longer manifest due to a lack of demand in these submarkets.

Quote:
Speaking of meandering...
I'd go with pithy over meandering.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field. ~Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8435  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 9:01 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
But those weren't the neighborhoods that were in the study, were they?

An interesting takeaway from the paper is that the market (current and prospective owners) of the properties affected by the upzoning responded almost immediately to the market signal as indicated by the increased value of the land reflecting it's now higher use. However, construction of addition housing supply took a lot longer manifest due to a lack of demand in these submarkets.

I'd go with pithy over meandering.
Pity the pithy?

I plead the fifth. Impressed that you took the time. That makes at least one of us.

The overriding assumption that I still hold to is that any affordability improvements will be very modest and at the margin. For that matter downtown Denver isn't all that unique to the whole Denver metro area which is much less affordable than it once was.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8436  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 9:11 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,667
(never mind, others have covered my point)
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8437  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2020, 10:12 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,811
Developer plans 1,600 residential units in massive update to Denver's Golden Triangle neighborhood
Feb 17, 2020 By James Rodriguez – Reporter, Denver Business Journal

Not all of this is new to us but's it's fun anyway.
Quote:
Lennar Multifamily Communities, a real estate investment and multifamily development arm of Miami-based homebuilder Lennar Corp. (NYSE: LEN), plans to deliver more than 1,600 residential units to the area surrounding the historic Evans School over the next five to seven years, significantly increasing the residential population of Denver's Golden Triangle neighborhood.

LMC plans to develop a total of five buildings, which are in various stages of development; one is already under construction, while two do not yet have concept plans filed with the city.
Walk the Talk
Quote:
The plan is for the projects to integrate with the 5280 Trail, a proposed five-mile loop that would connect downtown to surrounding neighborhoods via urban trails for pedestrians and bikers.

"The real thing for us and for the neighborhood and for Denver is to take the Golden Triangle to a whole new level without ruining the charm it already has," Johnson said.
Afaik, all projects will build to the allowable 'view plane' of 16 to 18 stories.


Rendering courtesy SA+R
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8438  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 12:38 AM
SirLucasTheGreat SirLucasTheGreat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 375
Lennar is really going all in on Golden Triangle. I would like to see more of the parking lots on 13th Avenue bite the dust but I suppose that the demand for parking is pretty high with all of the Civic and legal institutions in that area. If we could get some more retail in the neighborhood, that would be great.

On an unrelated note, the X3 site in Arapahoe Square looks like it is pretty much under construction at this time. Excited to see the momentum build there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8439  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 1:32 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 12,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by laniroj View Post
Do you really think City Council would approve a metro district for 25,000 SF of land? Hell, what about a 3 acre parcel of one project? Giant master plans are different than infill, and infill w/o metro districts or PIFs or TIFs account for the vast majority of units we produce. By my logic, it's not possible for the vast majority of land sites in Denver where there's not a single owner that controls hundreds of acres of land.
If you're doing $50-100MM/year, my guess is you're not doing a ton of 25,000 sf projects. And I'd also guess the environmental is not driving that lack of interest. It's just not worth the effort for the returns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8440  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 1:35 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 12,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Developer plans 1,600 residential units in massive update to Denver's Golden Triangle neighborhood
Feb 17, 2020 By James Rodriguez – Reporter, Denver Business Journal

Not all of this is new to us but's it's fun anyway.

Walk the Talk

Afaik, all projects will build to the allowable 'view plane' of 16 to 18 stories.


Rendering courtesy SA+R
Oh look, a national developer going through the painful effort to assemble enough of that unavailable land to make development at scale worthwhile. Good for them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:30 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.