DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Arapahoe Square and Golden Triangle are each more walkable to downtown than Curtis Park and both have incredible residential supply in the pipeline. Is the issue when is the most appropriate time to upzone Curtis Park? I'm not sure that it is a top priority at this moment. Aren't there other more important issues to address, such as unreasonable parking requirements? I'm really excited to see Kenect Denver, X3, and Evolve Towers move forward. Arapahoe Square really could be another LoDo but with greater density

[Cirrus]

Over time the difference is not nil. That is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that over time the regulatory system needs to enable evolution that it does not enable today.

The entire reason we are talking about a supply/demand "shock" right now (which I agree is not really possible) is that our system prevented evolution rather than enabling it, and that resulted in a problem building up and building up and getting worse over time, until it became so gigantic that it's now undeniable. It will continue to get worse until we modify our system to enable the kind of evolution that's necessary. That won't make everything OK the next day. But you still do it.

If you have a bathtub full of water, and it's flooding your bathroom floor, do you leave the plug in and let the flood keep getting worse just because all the water won't disappear in the first 5 seconds? No, you pull out the plug and let it drain. Obviously.

The same is true for housing. It is only not obvious because of the time scale involved.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Wow, way to completely miss the key points.

Nope, not the least surprised.

TakeFive - Denvere's Eeyore.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I just think that focusing on Curtis Park as a big part of the problem when you still have TONS of develope-able land in OTHER close in to downtown areas, such as Araphahoe Square, Golden Triangle, Cap Hill, River Mile, Mile Hi, Sun Valley, Brighton Blvd, north RiNO, Ballpark, etc., makes no sense.

And I would challenge you to think in terms of why is Curtis Park such as special snowflake that it shouldn't be subject to the same development patterns as the rest of the neighborhoods that you listed. This is, believe it or not classic NIMBYism. It's no different than when that guy told me that Millenials that want to live in Denver should move to Highlands Ranch to solve our housing issues.

Arapahoe Square - it's growing, but the projects are large and take no less than 3 years to plan and complete. Allowing gentle density increase in Curtis Park would allow for smaller (but more) housing to come online quicker.

GT - lot assemblage is a big issue, so you only have a handful of lots that will pencil out. Also, there are are height restrictions and new GT guidelines coming down the pike.

Cap Hill - not many lots for sale and it's actually zone lower than what's already built.

River Mile - it's several years out until dirt is moved. Decades for full build-out. Master planned, so you'll have an incomplete neighborhood until full build-out.

Mile Hi & Sun Valley - at least 2 years out from breaking ground on anything. Master planned, so you'll have an incomplete neighborhood until full build-out.

Brighton Blvd. & NoRiNo - there hasn't been a single for-sale housing development yet, but at least it's moving along.

BallPark - there are a ton of parking lots, but not a lot of movement on the housing front lately.

Curtis Park - why not? Why can't we allow the building of 3-5 story apartments, condos, townhomes across the neighborhood? It doesn't mean that it'll happen on every block. In fact, more more areas that we allow development, the more spread out the impact will be.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Over time the difference is not nil. That is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that over time the regulatory system needs to enable evolution that it does not enable today.

The entire reason we are talking about a supply/demand "shock" right now (which I agree is not really possible) is that our system prevented evolution rather than enabling it, and that resulted in a problem building up and building up and getting worse over time, until it became so gigantic that it's now undeniable. It will continue to get worse until we modify our system to enable the kind of evolution that's necessary. That won't make everything OK the next day. But you still do it.

If you have a bathtub full of water, and it's flooding your bathroom floor, do you leave the plug in and let the flood keep getting worse just because all the water won't disappear in the first 5 seconds? No, you pull out the plug and let it drain. Obviously.

The same is true for housing. It is only not obvious because of the time scale involved.

Final comment; then we can get back to more interesting things.

To solve your bathtub problem it's best just to shower.

I don't entirely disagree with you; I understand the simple logic of it.

I've alluded to two extremes; there's any number of half-way measures. But Stonemans_rowJ points to the elephant in the room. Location, location, location.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

TakeFive - Denvere's Eeyore.

Well I am a fan of A. A. Milne's Winnie-the-Pooh. I understand we may see things differently and that's what makes for a good horse race.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Curtis Park - why not? Why can't we allow the building of 3-5 story apartments, condos, townhomes across the neighborhood? It doesn't mean that it'll happen on every block. In fact, more more areas that we allow development, the more spread out the impact will be.

I recall saying exactly this during our previous debate. I mentioned that there is already a bit of a mish-mash in Curtis Park. That said I also recognized that there existed zoning as Curtis Park has already explained.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

How many times do I have to say that to move the needle you'd need to scrape Curtis Park (et al) clean for much higher density. To repeat myself (again) if you want to scrape all of Denver's history then you can remake what exists and it would definitely change a lot of things. It's up to the citizen-voters of Denver. But that's waaay different than adding some missing middle at the margin.

Upzoning and allowing more density and "scraping all of Denver's history" are completely different things. You don't need to dip a whole neighborhood in amber to preserve history. You can save contributing structures up to whole blocks if you want to. Upzoning relieves the pressure valve across the entire city by allowing project opportunities in more places, building the necessary capacity quicker. If 100 people want to live in Curtis Park, you could scrape 50 houses and build new houses to accommodate them all, or you could scrape a quarter block and built a 4 story condo building to accommodate all of them.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Upzoning and allowing more density and "scraping all of Denver's history" are completely different things. You don't need to dip a whole neighborhood in amber to preserve history. You can save contributing structures up to whole blocks if you want to. Upzoning relieves the pressure valve across the entire city by allowing project opportunities in more places, building the necessary capacity quicker. If 100 people want to live in Curtis Park, you could scrape 50 houses and build new houses to accommodate them all, or you could scrape a quarter block and built a 4 story condo building to accommodate all of them.

I don't disagree.

How much difference it would make over time is speculative.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

In development news, Austin-based Cypress Real Estate is petitioning city council to rezone part of the Denargo Market area to allow for a 12-story residential development with ground floor commercial space.

https://denverite.com/2020/02/05/in-...d-a-warehouse/

Cypress was one of the earliest of birds as they worked hard to assemble a smorgasbord of sites that make the the original Denargo Market back prior to the recession. After (waiting to) building the first apartment they decided to sell off other sites to other developers. Now they're back to buying land again for development. Seems like they have an identity crisis?

In any case, unless I'm mistaken, this site is nearby to the land that Golub (partner on WTC) from Chicago bought recently.

[tommyboy733]

Here's a few projects. Some were completed in 2018/2019 so maybe stale but I had all the pictures anyway...

6900 Layton.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_095028875_HDR [/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_20200205_094352346_HDR [/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_20200205_094846149_HDR[/IMG]


DTC Union Apartments is under construction (SWC of Union and Niagara)

[IMG]IMG_20200205_094114046 [/IMG]

Here's a rendering from their website. https://daegroupllc.com/project/dtc-union-apartments/

[IMG]NE-CORNER_DTC_17509-1080x720 [/IMG]

The extended stay slated for the hotel/apartment building (?) on the NWC of Chenago and Quebec was fenced off with crews on-site. Demo appears imminent.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_094810467_HDR[/IMG]

One DTC west.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_093415081_HDR [/IMG]

Here are the existing apartments for commentary, which have been finished for several years. Really like these buildings, nice street presence. The retail has been surprisingly successful. Better than many other buildings in the city IMO. More of these please.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_093831254_HDR[/IMG]

Wow look at that streetscape!

[IMG]IMG_20200205_093633540_HDR [/IMG]

Here's some photos on the east side of the I-25. I'm very interested in how "older" suburban areas transition. Most of the originally office buildings had large sites of 5-10 acres. Projects such as these are on smaller sites of 0.5 - 2.0 acres.

50Fifty DTC, completed in 2018. Integrated parking underneath the building. urban form

[IMG]IMG_20200205_095409815_HDR[/IMG]

Here's the hotel between Remax and Syracuse. difficult site. suburban form.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_095252352_HDR[/IMG]

Denver Corporate Center developed retail on their excess surface parking. While more of a typical suburban retail strip, I found this interesting in the context of "older" suburban areas transitioning and evolving.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_110745003_HDR [/IMG]

I've put "older" in quotations because this area was developed in the 70s and 80s, hardly old by city standards.

I've heard the office building proposed on SEC ff Union and Syracuse has been cancelled, so that's out.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Thanks for the photos! While DTC is still far more car-dependent than any of us would probably like, I'm hopeful that the Belleview Station master planned development will be much better than the office park on the east side of the highway. 6900 Layton is shaping up to be one of my favorite buildings in that area.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Upzoning and allowing more density and "scraping all of Denver's history" are completely different things. You don't need to dip a whole neighborhood in amber to preserve history. You can save contributing structures up to whole blocks if you want to. Upzoning relieves the pressure valve across the entire city by allowing project opportunities in more places, building the necessary capacity quicker. If 100 people want to live in Curtis Park, you could scrape 50 houses and build new houses to accommodate them all, or you could scrape a quarter block and built a 4 story condo building to accommodate all of them.

I guess the classic NIMBY response here is: well how do we prevent this upzoning approach from resulting in full on Tennyson fucked-upness (which I think all sides can agree is not a desirable outcome). Is that addressed through design overlay? Or so we just tell them to just with it......your neighborhood will end up like a Tennyson/Sloans Lake hell hole, but its for the greater good of society.

[The Dirt]

Tennyson is fucked up architecture-wise, though, right? It's not a density issue. I agree that the architecture leave a lot to be desired, but design overlays don't necessarily result in results that everyone likes, either. It's tough.

What's this about Sloan's Lake, though? What part of it is a hell hole?

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Does anybody here go to the YIMBY Denver events, such as the happy hour tomorrow?

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Tennyson is fucked up architecture-wise, though, right? It's not a density issue. I agree that the architecture leave a lot to be desired, but design overlays don't necessarily result in results that everyone likes, either. It's tough.

What's this about Sloan's Lake, though? What part of it is a hell hole?

Hell hole might be a bit of a strong word, and it's not about the density. But I think the problem is every bit as much about the urban design as it is about the architecture. This one in particular is case and point for me. The cheap materials I can almost live with but I really don't care for the idea of the front door of my townhome almost literally being in somebody elses' private alley. In this particular case, the building on the right could have simply reversed orientation and shared the access path with their neighbors like the narrow streets humans have put between their buildings for millennia. But instead, it all seems to forget that buildings typically have a discernible front and back side.

This is why I often harp so much on the idea of parceling off alley lots and developing there instead (creating something like a London "mews") - or making the primary historic home into a larger, multi-family kind of structure, or both. Denver's 125' deep lots otherwise encourage this other kind of crap - driveway cuts potentially every 50'-100' on blocks that already have alleys. This might seem like a reasonable way for a single developer to maximize density on their own but there's no way anybody can tell me with a straight face that something like this is an ideal outcome for maximizing density on the scale of a whole block. ESPECIALLY considering that real alleys are two-sided, whereas many of these private alleys are only used on a single side - this creates redundant infrastructure. Logic would suggest that everybody leaves a little developable land on the table this way.

The way you would maximize density on a block, not to mention create a better human experience, would almost surely look more like this one, just a few blocks from the other. Granted, the developer had control of the whole block here, but I also believe this kind of outcome could be planned for.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Does anybody here go to the YIMBY Denver events, such as the happy hour tomorrow?

I've gone a few times. I've seen Mr. Denver Infill there a few times, as well.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Tennyson is fucked up architecture-wise, though, right? It's not a density issue. I agree that the architecture leave a lot to be desired, but design overlays don't necessarily result in results that everyone likes, either. It's tough.

What's this about Sloan's Lake, though? What part of it is a hell hole?

As noted above its not just poor architecture, its poor urban design. I have sympathy for the argument that upzoning and density ruined what was once a very nice, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhood. And I guess I haven't seen a convincing argument to push back on the NIMBYs that say 'Density will just turn (Park Hill, Curtis Park, Mayfair, Wash Park) into the next Tennyson'. Though I do think some of the proposals in the neighborhood plans (preserving building facades when adding units, enhanced design overlay, etc) take steps towards addressing what happened to Tennyson.

Sloans lake from 16th-19th and Federal-Tennyson is nearly as awful as Tennyson.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

As noted above its not just poor architecture, its poor urban design. I have sympathy for the argument that upzoning and density ruined what was once a very nice, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhood. And I guess I haven't seen a convincing argument to push back on the NIMBYs that say 'Density will just turn (Park Hill, Curtis Park, Mayfair, Wash Park) into the next Tennyson'. Though I do think some of the proposals in the neighborhood plans (preserving building facades when adding units, enhanced design overlay, etc) take steps towards addressing what happened to Tennyson.

Sloans lake from 16th-19th and Federal-Tennyson is nearly as awful as Tennyson.

This is what happens when you move from an over-arching zoning theory down to street level reality.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Curtis Park - why not? Why can't we allow the building of 3-5 story apartments, condos, townhomes across the neighborhood? It doesn't mean that it'll happen on every block. In fact, more more areas that we allow development, the more spread out the impact will be.

I made this exact argument when this was all debated months ago. Except in that discussion the hyper-focus was on the 'missing middle'.

When the discussion moved over to Curtis Park I recall specifically suggesting that if you were to scrape less historically significant homes or existing commercial, why not allow mid-level density apartments instead of just 'missing middle' units. While I was hesitant to make blanket zoning changes I saw plenty of opportunity for more density in Curtis Park.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

...Though I do think some of the proposals in the neighborhood plans (preserving building facades when adding units, enhanced design overlay, etc) take steps towards addressing what happened to Tennyson.

Sloans lake from 16th-19th and Federal-Tennyson is nearly as awful as Tennyson.

Am I the only one that doesn't think Tennyson is that bad? I know every building doesn't have great street frontage, but I mean... expecting 100% wonderful super-smart, perfectly-designed architecture is a bit much. It's denser and has more walkable retail than it did before, so I would count that as a win. I feel like people focus on the bad examples and then paint the entire neighborhood as "terrible" to discourage further development. "Did you see that one apartment on the corner that looks like a turd? Yeah, we shouldn't build anything ever again anywhere near it because it might maybe turn out just as bad." I'd rather use the bad example to get better development down the road.


And the worst part of the east side of Sloans Lake/Jefferson Park/West Colfax is not the architecture or localized urban design, but that the city's zoning updates did not really consider how to turn a car-centric city into a walkable urban area. Some areas were upzoned or overlaid allowing denser development, but the entire area from 23rd to Colfax, Federal to Perry is more or less devoid of non-residential uses. There was opportunity to encourage mixed-use or retail on certain corners and definitely along 17th, so that all those people moving into new townhomes could walk somewhere, but that didn't happen. Instead you have a huge neighborhood that people have to drive out of to go to work, eat, or shop.


As a final note - upzone it all. Every city-center or city-close neighborhood should have dense development. 100 story towers in West Highland to block the light. 500 foot walls to obstruct precious mountain views. If you live close enough to downtown to spend less than 20 minutes getting there by bus you shouldn't be able to fight dense development. Age does not equal "historic" either. Just because your hovel was built in 1900 doesn't mean we have to save it. Is it architecturally significant or can you document how it contributed to the history of Denver? Then save it. Is it just 100 years old, full of lead pipes and aluminum wiring and you just thought that the city would never grow or mature beyond some rose-colored past and you don't want to live next to apartments? TEAR IT DOWN. Do you want a single-family home with a nice yard and quiet streets? Move to the suburbs, tolerate the drive. You want equitable housing and equal opportunity for everyone? Dense apartments are a way to build affordably - let them be built in neighborhoods that are really really close to where good jobs are. Let them be built with no parking to save money. Assuming somewhere else nearby can take all the development so your picture perfect little suburban life within spitting distance of the CBD can continue is absurd.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

As noted above its not just poor architecture, its poor urban design. I have sympathy for the argument that upzoning and density ruined what was once a very nice, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhood. And I guess I haven't seen a convincing argument to push back on the NIMBYs that say 'Density will just turn (Park Hill, Curtis Park, Mayfair, Wash Park) into the next Tennyson'. Though I do think some of the proposals in the neighborhood plans (preserving building facades when adding units, enhanced design overlay, etc) take steps towards addressing what happened to Tennyson.

Sloans lake from 16th-19th and Federal-Tennyson is nearly as awful as Tennyson.

The whining about Tennyson is tiresome. It's two freakin' blocks on the west side and the corner of 44th and Tennyson where the slot home wave was centered and where a particularly egregious project was slapped up. Two blocks of questionable development does not ruin a neighborhood. Especially when said two blocks replaced a shitty mix of pre-WW2 dilapidated crap and 1950's era ranch crap. Crap that wiped out 1920's era and earlier crap.

The same goes for the Sloan's Lake area, but the T-Alley's with the garden plot centers made for a poor upzoning area without the ability to mass condemn and replot the land. Chalk one up to organic upzoning that doesn't mesh well with the current infrastructure.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that what was lost was of no consequence and what replaced it was of no consequence. Grandma Hernandaz''s house sucked and no one missed it. But what matters was that old and tired crap that has been replaced has been allowed by zoning to gain a sense of permanence and our feeble minds cannot process incremental change any longer because of this. Short of offering frontal lobotomy's to NIMBY's and the old so that they can maintain their Mayfield-esque sense of permanence I'd say an upzoning of the entire city is the prescription.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

I guess the classic NIMBY response here is: well how do we prevent this upzoning approach from resulting in full on Tennyson fucked-upness (which I think all sides can agree is not a desirable outcome). Is that addressed through design overlay? Or so we just tell them to just with it......your neighborhood will end up like a Tennyson/Sloans Lake hell hole, but its for the greater good of society.

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. I can’t find it now, but a while back I came across an old ad from the 1920s in a Seattle newspaper about the menace of craftsman bungalows taking over the city. Nothing new under the sun. Give me a dense, concrete filled Japanese city where living a physically healthy and environmentally responsible lifestyle is achievable for everyone, rather than a city of South Park Hills where the plebeians get to enjoy driving through once a year to ogle the architecture overladen with Christmas lights, and then return to tract homes 40 miles away in Weld County.

Part of what makes Sloans/Jeff Park so horrific is that it’s ALL slot homes. And what makes slot homes so damn ugly is *parking*. The need for everyone to have a two car garage along with our extremely prescriptive zoning is what resulted in the Slot Home Horror Show. I don’t blame developers, I blame federal and local policies over decades that have resulted in poor urban design. We’re still holding on to a bizarre, modernist, racist, utopian vision of city living from the 1930s when we now know how exclusionary and harmful that vision is for the planet and for our society.

If the zoning in the city were more permissive and flexible and if developers/homeowners could decide for themselves how much parking they’d like to consume, I am sure we’d have a wider diversity of housing types. As The Dirt was mentioning, if we built midrise condo/apartment buildings in walkable neighborhoods, we wouldn’t need to scrape every single SFH. Look at Cap Hill as an example. Despite a midcentury boom of missing middle housing, the vast majority of pre-war brick buildings were left standing. We need to start with addressing the disastrous policy mistakes in the housing market (both on the supply and demand side) before we get to the extraordinarily privileged point of telling people what their homes are allowed to look like.

[TakeFive]

Not according to Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval

Originally Posted by mojiferous

It's denser and has more walkable retail than it did before, so I would count that as a win.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/01/...ents-business/

Sandoval said as a result, the corridor that once thrived on retail is now forcing many businesses out.

“They can turn it all into residential, which I think is an unintended consequence of that zone district- in my personal opinion,” Sandovol continued, “as retail, you pay higher property tax than you do as a residential.”

“From 44th north to 46th, a lot of the retail has been wiped out 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.”

When Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval took office in July, she knew part of her mission was to do something about the rapid development on Tennyson.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Short of offering frontal lobotomy's to NIMBY's and the old so that they can maintain their Mayfield-esque sense of permanence I'd say an upzoning of the entire city is the prescription.

Rabble-rouser!