HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8441  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 3:12 AM
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.
Off-topic piece about Chicago but to your point.
Quote:
Chicago saw its population decline in 2018, the fourth year in a row. Since 2015, almost 50,000 black residents have left.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8442  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 4:23 AM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldurhamer View Post
Has anybody here bothered to search for rental options under $1000 in 80205? Here’s a hint. There are loads of them and the prices are dropping.

But let’s not let that get in the way of some groupthink demanding change!

Turns out your waitresses can live wherever they want, despite the loads if misinformation you’ll read fipir zhere.
A quick HotPads search for zip code 80205 with the only filter set for $1000 and under, generates 4 results:

21st St #18, Denver, CO 80205
Studio with 270 sq.ft. Shared laundry, no dishwasher and no mention of heating and air.
Cost is $835/mo

N Gaylord St, Denver, CO 80205
One Bedroom with 600 sq.ft.
Shared laundry, A/C, no dishwasher, no pets, no utilities included in rent.
Cost is $1000/mo

N Franklin St, Denver, CO 80205
For rent is only the master bedroom of an occupied 3 bedroom townhouse. So basically someone is looking for a roommate that will rent a bedroom and pay for their mortgage.
Cost is $1000/mo

Downing Street, Denver, CO 80205
Studio with 215 sq.ft. (my livingroom is 220 sq.ft. for perspective). A/C, electric heat, no dishwasher,
No on-site laundry, no utilities included.
Cost is $800/mo

That's it! That is everything listed in ZIP Code 80205 for under $1000/mo. I wouldn't consider this to be boatloads of options. In fact, I don't consider any of these to be an option at all. For those who think these are options, four lucky people will be able to move into ZIP Code 80205!
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8443  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 5:03 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 SnyderBock View Post
That's it! That is everything listed in ZIP Code 80205 for under $1000/mo. I wouldn't consider this to be boatloads of options. In fact, I don't consider any of these to be an option at all. For those who think these are options, four lucky people will be able to move into ZIP Code 80205!
Why are we searching 80205? To me, affordability does not mean everybody can live in whatever zip code they want.

Rent.com, do a search for under $1,000, 1 bedroom (because screw studios), I get 57 properties. And these are apartments, not roommate situations. Not a ton, many in the burbs, and none in the fancy-pants central Denver neighborhoods. But they do apparently exist, and look fine... Hey, I could apparently still get close to $1000 in my old Harvey Park apartment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8444  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 6:44 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,667
Proximity is pretty important. If you're renting <$1,000, there's a good chance you don't have a car. If there's not at least a bus running every 15 minutes, life would be pretty hard.

Decent housing prices are important in the core too. It can be very hard for the free market to provide that in the core, but it can be done with cheap land (plentiful zoned capacity), low/no parking, and small units....workforce-affordable at least, and livable for a single or couple.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8445  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 7:33 AM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Proximity is pretty important. If you're renting <$1,000, there's a good chance you don't have a car. If there's not at least a bus running every 15 minutes, life would be pretty hard.

Decent housing prices are important in the core too. It can be very hard for the free market to provide that in the core, but it can be done with cheap land (plentiful zoned capacity), low/no parking, and small units....workforce-affordable at least, and livable for a single or couple.
I just checked Poets Row (prime location) rents which start at $975 - Oops, that's outdated and now they start at $1165. The Quayle, a recently renovated historic hotel has rents from $975- $1044. I believe that's income restricted.

Denver does have a credible amount of designated affordable housing but they likely maintain a waiting list.

Denver still 'suffers' from being one of the most popular cities in attracting young movers and with unemployment at 2.3%, it's not hard to score a job. It's fair to say they don't have 'cheap dirt' in prime areas to accommodate cheaper housing. There are pockets where more affordable housing is on the drawing board but it just takes time and it's never enough.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8446  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 1:00 PM
Sam Hill's Avatar
Sam Hill Sam Hill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Why are we searching 80205? To me, affordability does not mean everybody can live in whatever zip code they want.

Rent.com, do a search for under $1,000, 1 bedroom (because screw studios), I get 57 properties. And these are apartments, not roommate situations. Not a ton, many in the burbs, and none in the fancy-pants central Denver neighborhoods. But they do apparently exist, and look fine... Hey, I could apparently still get close to $1000 in my old Harvey Park apartment.
We should live in walkable neighborhoods, close to where we work, and not be car-dependent, but only if we're wealthy. Got it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8447  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 3:27 PM
laniroj laniroj is offline
[sub]urbanite
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 192
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...
Chucklehead, I did read it. A couple of neighborhood upzonings has nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is a city-wide upzoning. That aside, the city-wide upzoning largely hasn't been tried in the USA. We'll see how it turns out in MN, WA, OR. Until then, all any of us have are opinions and each opinion is just as valid as the next though hopefully those opinions evolve with new information over time. Mine is that we should try something different and see if it works. Yours is essentially that we should keep doing it the same and expect a different result.

In any case, many of us would just like a change to see if it works.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8448  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 3:34 PM
The Dirt's Avatar
The Dirt The Dirt is offline
Ground Scraper
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,011
I could have sworn bunt_q was complaining a couple of years ago that Denver was turning into a playground for the rich. I guess now that he's got his, everyone else can fuck off to Aurora.

I really don't get the whole notion that we don't have the right to live where we want. Sure we do, this is America, so Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods shouldn't be limited to the 1 percenters. Yes, everyone still has to live within their means and trade certain things like lots of space, a back yard, and a garage, for a short commute and restaurants within walking distance. The idea that the richest country in the world shot itself in the foot (and the rest of the world, environmentally) by subsidizing and promoting the most inefficient land uses and transportation infrastructure is just sad. The fact that we still have smart, educated people still thinking that we can continue to do this with no consequences is even sadder.
__________________
"That emoticon is the most foolish thing you have posted in this whole thread full of foolish statements." - Cirrus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8449  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 3:40 PM
laniroj laniroj is offline
[sub]urbanite
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Hill View Post
We should live in walkable neighborhoods, close to where we work, and not be car-dependent, but only if we're wealthy. Got it.
Haha...exactly. Even if we have the tools to produce housing for all, let's just say screw it, I've got mine and everyone else is good! I will never understand this mind set.

I'll get off my soapbox, but I maintain that if enough land were available with the right zoning everywhere (not little spots here and there), we wouldn't have inflated land prices and we wouldn't have 1/3 of American households housing cost burdened. In every industry in this country, market forces find a way to meet demand, and often exceed demand (except apple now because their factories are in Wuhan). I'm just not sure why some folks on here think the real estate community would be exempt from that long history of business being able to provide adequate supply.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8450  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 4:04 PM
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 The Dirt View Post
I could have sworn bunt_q was complaining a couple of years ago that Denver was turning into a playground for the rich. I guess now that he's got his, everyone else can fuck off to Aurora.
Oh don't get me wrong, I am not at all okay with Denver being a playground for only the rich. But I also don't fudge the data to make a point. There's a difference between Bangladesh flooding and THE WORLD IS ENDING - neither is acceptable, but only one is a credible argument to be making. The far left is approaching Trump-level hyperbole, and whether I agree in principle or not, that's what I can't stomach. I am still all for build-build-build. But there are limits to what that can do - I'll still never be able to afford to live in the 16th arrondissement, and that is okay.

I also cannot stomach liberal hypocrisy, which I have also always been consistent on. Boulder has sucked for decades; it's just that Denver has caught the bug too now.

And to be clear, when I made the argument about Denver being a playground for the rich, it was often in the context of a transportation argument. Where the people on here - far-left hypocrites most of them - were arguing vehemently for bike lanes, at the time, to the exclusion of dirty ol' transit and evil drivers from the burbs. As a practical matter, when the poor get pushed out of the core, and the people in the core take away road space - either for transit or cars - the people hurt most by that are the poor who have every much a right to access central Denver as the privileged few who can afford to live in the middle, and who are the loudest about taking away that access, allegedly for benevolent "save the world" reasons. The poor family exiled to Aurora probably doesn't have a choice but to drive. And it's a hell of a lot harder when the 500 wealthy white men who ride bicycles have exercised their political privilege to take a bunch of the road space that used to be available to that family.

THAT is what I said.

That is also why I'll take a Trump over a Bernie every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Amy/Mike or Mike/Amy, that's my new horse. But really, I am anybody-but-Bernie. (Also, anybody-but-Polis, but have to wait a few years for that.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8451  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 4:32 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,172
It really is a shame the 15th Street bike lane prevented bus lanes from ever being implemented there, eh.

Anyway, where I've evolved from 5 years ago is that I used to think arterial street management was the most important thing. Now I think it's a distant second to making it legal for everyone who wants to live in the city core to live in the city core. We can talk about whether or not the market will ever really make that possible, but at the very minimum we shouldn't be making it illegal, and if we legalized enough housing then at the very very least vastly more people could do it than can today.

The city doesn't have to be a playground for the rich. That's not the natural way the city would develop, and it's happening in large part because of our policy choices. And while the government only has so much control over it, we shouldn't be mandating it by law, and bike lanes are not to blame for the bad access suburbanites endure. Policies that force and/or strongly incentivize people to live far away are to blame. Making driving marginally harder might contribute, but it's not the core problem, and eliminating bike lanes would be at best a marginal improvement for suburban drivers. And since the core problem is solvable, blaming bike lanes is just making excuses.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8452  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 4:54 PM
improvisedliving improvisedliving is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 3
There are options we just have to wake up from our car paradigm

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Proximity is pretty important. If you're renting <$1,000, there's a good chance you don't have a car. If there's not at least a bus running every 15 minutes, life would be pretty hard.

Decent housing prices are important in the core too. It can be very hard for the free market to provide that in the core, but it can be done with cheap land (plentiful zoned capacity), low/no parking, and small units....workforce-affordable at least, and livable for a single or couple.
I don't disagree, but if you count the rail corridors and 36 corridor with the Flatiron Flyer (Which is great high frequency corridor btw) and the trail corridors, There are lots of walk-able and especially bikeable options. Its a paradigm shift for sure, but its worth shifting! I don't have a car and live in norther burbs. I do own an road bike and an Ebike for commuting which is not cheap, (the ebike took the place of my car for when I don't want to take the bus/train), but I bought that 5 years ago for 2500$ and profited greatly from selling my car. Now 5 years and 25k miles later and I have probably sank 600 into maintenance, albeit I do most if it myself. I am in better shape than I have ever been and can say without a doubt living the car-less dream! Our infrastructure here is pretty amazing.

You can get to the northern and southern suburbs on some great trails, get some amazing exercise (even on an ebike in low assist, or full assist on some of our hills) and get out of your car. I recommend it to everyone. Put some nice panniers on them and you can haul quite a load. This does open up a lot of affordable options and in particular land to develop, but demand is high still even out here. Its just the paradigm of thinking issue with most of us. When it snows, pull out the studded tires and snowboard gear. NO biggie

Westminster Downtown as well as Broomfield and now Thornton with the N-Line have some great potential. They are also fully connected to downtown by trails. There is lots of land ready to shovel, not just in the core old mall space and near new train stops, but in parcels where retail is currently living and dying its slow death. Multiple shoping centers have recently raised and are building relatively affordable units on them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8453  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 4:57 PM
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 Cirrus View Post
It really is a shame the 15th Street bike lane prevented bus lanes from ever being implemented there, eh.

Anyway, where I've evolved from 5 years ago is that I used to think arterial street management was the most important thing. Now I think it's a distant second to making it legal for everyone who wants to live in the city core to live in the city core. We can talk about whether or not the market will ever really make that possible, but at the very minimum we shouldn't be making it illegal, and if we legalized enough housing then at the very very least vastly more people could do it than can today.

The city doesn't have to be a playground for the rich. That's not the natural way the city would develop, and it's happening in large part because of our policy choices. And while the government only has so much control over it, we shouldn't be mandating it by law, and bike lanes are not to blame for the bad access suburbanites endure. Policies that force and/or strongly incentivize people to live far away are to blame. Making driving marginally harder might contribute, but it's not the core problem, and eliminating bike lanes would be at best a marginal improvement for suburban drivers. And since the core problem is solvable, blaming bike lanes is just making excuses.
It’s easy to talk about changing policy. But what needs to change is the politics, and that’s a hell of a lot harder.

Particularly as NIMBYs - here at least - have started to wisen up and make smarter arguments. The East Side Planning mess here is a good example. They've started to say, look, we are fine with the density you’re proposing. But show us a credible plan to build the infrastructure to support that density in my lifetime - or my grandchildrens’ lifetimes. And we don’t have that. Not even close. There’s no money for one BRT line on Colfax for crying out loud, it’s all but dead. I’m not sure what to do about that, particularly here, where taxes are hard, a Denver-only tax base is objectively small, construction has gotten damned expensive, and RTD has given transit a generational black eye. But it’s a potent argument because it’s true - LA density creates gridlock without good supporting transit, and we have absolutely no credible plan for delivering that in the next two decades.

My response is “so what.” But it’s always going to be hard to move politics when the argument is “you’re right, your mobility will get worse, but that’s okay.” Which is the argument we are making currently.

EDIT: Don’t discount the value of the Metro to DC. I am always shocked how easy it is to get around there, by transit or car, relative to Denver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8454  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 5:09 PM
SirLucasTheGreat SirLucasTheGreat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 375
If you work anywhere that requires that you take 15th or 17th street, you can take transit. For all the flak that RTD receives, they don't get enough credit for tripling the size of our rail system since SE corridor opened in 2006. By the time the N line opens, I would assume that 90% of the metro area will be within a 10-15 minute drive of a rail station or the Flatiron flyer.

Last edited by SirLucasTheGreat; Feb 18, 2020 at 5:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8455  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 5:29 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,172
Sure, the politics are always hard. They block a lot of things from happening, and they seem impossible--right up until they're not. But we live in a world where Nebraska is debating outlawing apartment bans; the overton window has shifted from 5 years ago, and will continue to shift, and we'll do our best to help it along.

And yeah, every city should have a plan for transit, and we need to wise up to doing it more cheaply and easily. Every city should do a Jarret Walkerization, followed by busways that are nothing but paint and flexiposts, the same way bike lanes got done. We can't have every project be a decade-long New Start. TakeFive calls this approach "hating rail," but it's obviously the a big part of the answer to the "we need more, faster" problem that you accurately describe. And I tell you what; I think it's a big mistake that just about everyone's HOT lane projects are leaving frequent all day buses off the table.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.

Last edited by Cirrus; Feb 18, 2020 at 5:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8456  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 6:26 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by improvisedliving View Post
I don't disagree, but if you count the rail corridors and 36 corridor with the Flatiron Flyer (Which is great high frequency corridor btw) and the trail corridors, There are lots of walk-able and especially bikeable options. Its a paradigm shift for sure, but its worth shifting!
Wonderful post!

I suspect you're unique but I love your more macro-view of the world as apposed to obsessing over a small area of land downtown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
And to be clear, when I made the argument about Denver being a playground for the rich, it was often in the context of a transportation argument.
That would be my recollection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
As a practical matter, when the poor get pushed out of the core ... the poor who have every much a right to access central Denver as the privileged few who can afford to live in the middle ...
In newer cities experiencing explosive growth like Denver, Portland, Seattle, Austin etc, displacement and gentrification is all the rage. New Urbanism simply can't accommodate The Poors.

With respect to mobility it's no surprise that Marlon Boarnet's analysis of lower socioeconomic neighborhoods in San Diego showed that people had up to 30X better access to jobs when they drove a car instead of relying on transit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat View Post
If you work anywhere that requires that you take 15th or 17th street, you can take transit. For all the flak that RTD receives, they don't get enough credit for tripling the size of our rail system since SE corridor opened in 2006. By the time the N line opens, I would assume that 90% of the metro area will be within a 10-15 minute drive of a rail station or the Flatiron flyer.
Wholeheartedly agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
TakeFive calls this approach "hating rail," but it's obviously the a big part of the answer to the "we need more, faster" problem that you accurately describe. And I tell you what; I think it's a big mistake that just about everyone's HOT lane projects are leaving frequent all day buses off the table.
Not connecting the right dots but maybe it will come to me.

As to the rest of your points it goes right back to sticky politics. Best of luck.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8457  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 6:43 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
That is also why I'll take a Trump over a Bernie every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. Amy/Mike or Mike/Amy, that's my new horse. But really, I am anybody-but-Bernie. (Also, anybody-but-Polis, but have to wait a few years for that.)
According to Chris Cillizza the earth is indeed moving.
__________________
Cool... Denver has reached puberty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8458  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 9:29 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,667
Maybe you're talking about others, but to clarify:

I'm talking about large areas of the central city, not just downtown.

The affordability points I've made are basically ones that have worked in other cities. Mine does some things well (parking) and some poorly (too little zoned capacity, adding huge fees, not allowing the smallest micros anymore), so our record is mixed. Also we've built enough lately that apartment rents flattened for a year or so.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8459  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 9:42 PM
Valley Highway Valley Highway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 7
Denver Development?

I would invite anyone with actual Denver development news to post something here. Nothing on politics, nothing on transportation (there's another thread for that), nothing about which neighborhood is better than another, nothing with put-downs of some person you don't agree with, etc. And perhaps another thread could be started to address some of those things that obviously interest some of you. But perhaps I am not alone in having joined this group because I am keenly interested in what is happening with development, not all this extraneous material. Of course, I can hear the responses - "Just don't read the ones that don't interest you". Okay, I won't, but can there be at least a few more items about projects? Thanks in advance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8460  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2020, 9:44 PM
RyanD's Avatar
RyanD RyanD is offline
Fast. Fun. Frequent.
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Highway View Post
I would invite anyone with actual Denver development news to post something here. Nothing on politics, nothing on transportation (there's another thread for that), nothing about which neighborhood is better than another, nothing with put-downs of some person you don't agree with, etc. And perhaps another thread could be started to address some of those things that obviously interest some of you. But perhaps I am not alone in having joined this group because I am keenly interested in what is happening with development, not all this extraneous material. Of course, I can hear the responses - "Just don't read the ones that don't interest you". Okay, I won't, but can there be at least a few more items about projects? Thanks in advance.
I would argue that development directly relates to the conversation above. As a city grows, these are important conversations and arguments to have. Anyways, we have been posting on development, it just gets (quickly) buried by other conversations.
__________________
DenverInfill
DenverUrbanism
--------------------
Latest Photo Threads: Los Angeles | New Orleans | Denver: 2014 Megathread | Denver Time-Lapse Project For more photos check out: My Website and My Flickr Photostream
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 10:49 AM.

     

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