DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[bulldurhamer]

about that "missing middle"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Middle_Housing
"Missing Middle Housing consists of multi-unit housing types such as duplexes, fourplexes, bungalow courts, and mansion apartments that are not bigger than a large house, that are integrated throughout most walkable pre-1940s neighborhoods, "



this stuff if all over whittier, cole, cap hill, and beyond. notice duplexes are included in the definition. that "planner" earlier seems confused.

for those of you that don't venture near five points and just read the bullshit being typed here, i can assure you that this neighborhood is extremely diverse in every way, from the people, to the incomes, and through the housing stock.

the threat is the destruction of the lower classes here, not the middle. it's gotta be really insulting for the large number of lower class folks in the neighborhoods to hear about this middle bullshit while their houses are being taken away and handed to the "middle".

More from wikipedia:
Examples
Portland, OR, has a number of historic Missing Middle housing types located throughout the city, most of which are duplexes, that were built before the 1920s before the city's first zoning plan was approved.



This is exactly what Whittier, Cole, and Cap Hill is. Older and more affordable Duplexes and row houses and such are everywhere in addition to the new, higher priced ones. There's almost something for everybody here, from section 8 to the 4000 sq foot victorian mansions, to the "middle's" row houses and spit up housing.

[Denvergotback]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

about that "missing middle"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Middle_Housing
"Missing Middle Housing consists of multi-unit housing types such as duplexes, fourplexes, bungalow courts, and mansion apartments that are not bigger than a large house, that are integrated throughout most walkable pre-1940s neighborhoods, "



this stuff if all over whittier, cole, cap hill, and beyond. notice duplexes are included in the definition. that "planner" earlier seems confused.

for those of you that don't venture near five points and just read the bullshit being typed here, i can assure you that this neighborhood is extremely diverse in every way, from the people, to the incomes, and through the housing stock.

the threat is the destruction of the lower classes here, not the middle. it's gotta be really insulting for the large number of lower class folks in the neighborhoods to hear about this middle bullshit while their houses are being taken away and handed to the "middle".

More from wikipedia:
Examples
Portland, OR, has a number of historic Missing Middle housing types located throughout the city, most of which are duplexes, that were built before the 1920s before the city's first zoning plan was approved.



This is exactly what Whittier, Cole, and Cap Hill is. Older and more affordable Duplexes and row houses and such are everywhere in addition to the new, higher priced ones. There's almost something for everybody here, from section 8 to the 4000 sq foot victorian mansions, to the "middle's" row houses and spit up housing.

I actually drive through Whittier and Cole quite often, they are quite beautiful neighborhoods.

I think your missing the point. If we don't build and cater to the missing middle, then they have no option other than to buy up housing stock from the lower class.

If we only build lower class options, then we would still have the same problem; the middle class would have not many options and would still have to buy up housing stock from the lower class.

THE ONLY real effective way to really make a difference solving the issues your pointing at is to help build up the middle class stock so they don't have to resort to looking at other options.

[Cirrus]

So, I admit that "missing middle" is a nebulous and rapidly evolving term, which on top of being inherently nebulous and rapidly evolving also varies depending on where you are geographically. I concede that I have probably listed rowhouses as a form of missing middle in the past. And I concede that depending on the mix of supply/demand in a place, adding rowhouses can help address the problem.

The point of my comment was not really the semantics of the definition, although I can understand how it came off that way. The point of my comment was that in Denver in 2019, rowhouses (or slothomes, which are comparable in terms of density) are on the margins of what we need to solve the problem, and inadequate without the denser parts of the middle.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So, I admit that "missing middle" is a nebulous and rapidly evolving term, which on top of being inherently nebulous and rapidly evolving also varies depending on where you are geographically. I concede that I have probably listed rowhouses as a form of missing middle in the past. And I concede that depending on the mix of supply/demand in a place, adding rowhouses can help address the problem.

The point of my comment was not really the semantics of the definition, although I can understand how it came off that way. The point of my comment was that in Denver in 2019, rowhouses (or slothomes, which are comparable in terms of density) are on the margins of what we need to solve the problem, and inadequate without the denser parts of the middle.

Agreed. In Denver's case, the "missing middle" housing that is needed is NOT 2,000+ square-foot townhomes that go for $800k, but house-sized buildings holding 4 or 6 smaller for-sale or rental units that can be owned/rented for a much lower price.

[twister244]

I feel like my condo I purchased last year was an example of that "missing middle". It was a new construction condo (1-bedroom) in Jefferson Park for $315, which is pretty cheap for a new construction condo right now. All other developments I see in the area are $400+ for a one-bed, which is insane to me. Does the condo development have a pool, rooftop hangout area, grills, a dog-washing station, and a bellman? No..... and that's the point. It's not designed for folks who want to spend $500/month on HOAs for a luxury place. No offense to the Coloradan, but that building is designed for folks with money, not regular middle-class folks who want to live downtown. Here's an article (old) when my building first started going up - https://www.5280.com/2017/04/condos-...rk-yes-really/

[Agent Orange]

I venture near Five Points every day because I live there and venture through Whittier and Cole a couple times a week because several of my closest friends live there. I see these blocks up close everyday because I don't own a car and walk/bike everywhere. Yes, Five Points (and to a lesser extent Whittier and Cole) have rowhomes and duplexes. But in terms of built form, it hasn’t changed much in 100 years. I’d argue it’s less dense than it was 50 years ago, because many of those “broken up” mansions have been consolidated back into one unit.

Places like Virginia Village and Montclair need to dispose of their single family only zoning and allow townhomes and duplexes etc. to catch up with demand. But in the case of Five Points/Whittier/Cole (hereinafter referred to as FPWC), these neighborhoods need to move up the scale of incremental development by allowing quad/six-plexes and small apartment buildings that are maybe 3-4 stories tall (in fact a small number of these already exist from the 1960s so it wouldn’t be without precedent). Right now, the highest intensity in most of FPWC outside of Rino is RU 2.5. Most of W/C is single unit. If we allow this part of town to move on to a higher increment of intensity, I believe displacement and housing cost inflation will be less extreme and less rapid than trying to keep the current density and “character”. Bulldurham types' (arguably) well meaning attempts to keep things the same will ultimately end up causing the most harm to the vulnerable communities they aim to protect.

FPWC are a stone’s throw away from the CBD/Lodo, the largest employment center in the state. Once the 38th and Blake office construction takes off, I believe this area will undergo another wave of gentrification, perhaps it will even evolve into Wash Park levels of unaffordability and sterility, if we don’t upzone (and get rid of parking requirements). The building twister244 linked to is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. (Side note, is there parking on the ground floor, or are there housing units down there?)

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

I actually drive through Whittier and Cole quite often, they are quite beautiful neighborhoods.

I think your missing the point. If we don't build and cater to the missing middle, then they have no option other than to buy up housing stock from the lower class.

If we only build lower class options, then we would still have the same problem; the middle class would have not many options and would still have to buy up housing stock from the lower class.

THE ONLY real effective way to really make a difference solving the issues your pointing at is to help build up the middle class stock so they don't have to resort to looking at other options.

Another factor at play here in addition to the "missing middle": tastes have changed in terms of urban living, and housing stock.

Urban flight saw much of the core city devalued and stagnant, as residents fled to the suburbs. Thus in the 60s to 80s much of what is now prime Denver real estate became relatively cheap and more readily within reach for lower income people. I remember looking in Uptown in the 80s and was amazed at how cheaply you could rent (or buy) a beautiful vintage home. Highlands, Sloans Lake, Berkley and the Tennyson corridor were so cheap they would make a current home buyer cry like a baby. (How do homes under 50K sound?).

That's all changed and now both from a architecture/housing stock perspective, and from a now-valued urban amenities perspective, these homes and neighborhoods are highly valued. Part is the perception that, comparatively speaking, everything built from the 50s onward is of lower quality (hence the famous "donut effect, with old urban neighborhoods valued, early suburbs substantially devalued, and far flung, new suburban neighborhoods valued).

Filling in the missing middle will help the overall regional market, but might not reduce the demand for certain types of homes and certain neighborhoods driven by the above-factors.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Amazon plans to create 400 new tech jobs with new office expansion in Denver Amazon is going to be leasing almost 100,000 square feet at 1515 Wynkoop.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/30/amaz...expansion.html

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

I venture near Five Points every day because I live there and venture through Whittier and Cole a couple times a week because several of my closest friends live there. I see these blocks up close everyday because I don't own a car and walk/bike everywhere. Yes, Five Points (and to a lesser extent Whittier and Cole) have rowhomes and duplexes. But in terms of built form, it hasn’t changed much in 100 years. I’d argue it’s less dense than it was 50 years ago, because many of those “broken up” mansions have been consolidated back into one unit.

Places like Virginia Village and Montclair need to dispose of their single family only zoning and allow townhomes and duplexes etc. to catch up with demand. But in the case of Five Points/Whittier/Cole (hereinafter referred to as FPWC), these neighborhoods need to move up the scale of incremental development by allowing quad/six-plexes and small apartment buildings that are maybe 3-4 stories tall (in fact a small number of these already exist from the 1960s so it wouldn’t be without precedent). Right now, the highest intensity in most of FPWC outside of Rino is RU 2.5. Most of W/C is single unit. If we allow this part of town to move on to a higher increment of intensity, I believe displacement and housing cost inflation will be less extreme and less rapid than trying to keep the current density and “character”. Bulldurham types' (arguably) well meaning attempts to keep things the same will ultimately end up causing the most harm to the vulnerable communities they aim to protect.

FPWC are a stone’s throw away from the CBD/Lodo, the largest employment center in the state. Once the 38th and Blake office construction takes off, I believe this area will undergo another wave of gentrification, perhaps it will even evolve into Wash Park levels of unaffordability and sterility, if we don’t upzone (and get rid of parking requirements). The building twister244 linked to is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. (Side note, is there parking on the ground floor, or are there housing units down there?)

There's two ground floor units facing the front, then there's parking in the back under the two top floors. There's 26 units, with one parking spot allocated to each unit.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Amazon plans to create 400 new tech jobs with new office expansion in Denver Amazon is going to be leasing almost 100,000 square feet at 1515 Wynkoop.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/30/amaz...expansion.html

Damn... just filling out that office market a bit more now..... Even I am starting to wonder if we can get T2 off the ground now with this kind of announcement. Maybe if we didn't have so many planned spaces going up in RiNo, the chances would be better. But, either way, I'm happy with this news. Just means Denver growth is continuing. The article doesn't indicate any incentives were used for this, is that correct?

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Amazon plans to create 400 new tech jobs with new office expansion in Denver Amazon is going to be leasing almost 100,000 square feet at 1515 Wynkoop.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/30/amaz...expansion.html

Very nice commitment. Even bigger than the 400 jobs is the opportunity to grow that number further down the road. That's a nice seat at the table in the Amazon world: can grow that commitment if its shown that Denver can supply (or attract) the talent Amazon needs.

[TakeFive]

One of my favorite views of propaganda whether Streetsblog liberal or Sean Hannity conservative is they like to start with some clearly factual or common sense premises and then proceed to connect dots that don't. It's important to question the linkage.

Second is to ask/consider what they don't say? This is usually the more important part. They don't want you to even thing about X, Y, and Z; just focus on the Q.

For example if you replace a house with a four-plex you quadruple the number of housing units. Hard to argue with that. Do this enough and you can really move the needle, right? Actually what is simple math doesn't always work so well in the real world for various reasons.

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

the threat is the destruction of the lower classes here, not the middle. it's gotta be really insulting for the large number of lower class folks in the neighborhoods to hear about this middle bullshit while their houses are being taken away and handed to the "middle".

Bingo; crafty way to legitimize the process for the goal of supposed middle gentrification. I agree that the solution can be worse than the problem. Another excellent comment btw.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Another factor at play here in addition to the "missing middle": tastes have changed in terms of urban living, and housing stock.

Filling in the missing middle will help the overall regional market, but might not reduce the demand for certain types of homes and certain neighborhoods driven by the above-factors.

Exactly and a nicely articulated post.

It's a great example of how simple math and the real world don't produce the (assumed) desired results.

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Agreed. In Denver's case, the "missing middle" housing that is needed is NOT 2,000+ square-foot townhomes that go for $800k, but house-sized buildings holding 4 or 6 smaller for-sale or rental units that can be owned/rented for a much lower price.

Obviously not the best example but it is impressive how much has changed. Wasn't all that long ago that people would have thought $850,000 townhomes in that location was an April Fools joke.

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Places like Virginia Village and Montclair need to dispose of their single family only zoning and allow townhomes and duplexes etc. to catch up with demand.

I'd agree in that most of the focus is within (say) a 3-mile radius of downtown as if nothing exists outside of that line.

OTOH, Cherry Creek nicely describes why all the action is where it is.

While bulldurhamer nicely speaks to an obvious fix, at least on paper.

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

or you could utilize the light rail and buy something you can afford in a location you can afford. the notion that everybody should just get to buy a place right downtown is lunacy, especially when the metro has transportation networks in place to move people to and from.

[Cirrus]

the threat is the destruction of the lower classes here, not the middle. it's gotta be really insulting for the large number of lower class folks in the neighborhoods to hear about this middle bullshit while their houses are being taken away and handed to the "middle".

the "middle" in "missing middle" doesn't mean middle income class. It means middle density. The entire point is that middle density buildings are the most inherently affordable type of building. If we want to provide more deeply affordable housing, middle density development is the only path that really works. This is why deeply affordable housing in any city tends to look like this.

So that's what we need more of. Unless you are going to argue that the only people who need affordable housing are the people who already have it, and therefore preservation of existing units is the only thing we need. Which would be extremely wrong.

[TakeFive]

Daydream Believer

Anybody else read BusinessDen's piece about the sale of Union Denver apartments to now Union Denver by daydream? It's hard to keep with all the new tech ways of making money.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Bingo; crafty way to legitimize the process for the goal of supposed middle gentrification. I agree that the solution can be worse than the problem. Another excellent comment btw.

Ok..... this is getting old.

Let's break down the folks that are being displaced here. They fall into one of two categories.
1.) They rent.
2.) They own a place.

Now... if they own a SFH in this part of town.... I think it would be safe to assume they bought a long time ago and now have way more equity than anyone else I know. In that case.... no sympathy from me.

If they rent..... guess what? They aren't the only ones dealing with rising rents in this town. everyone has to deal with it. It's ugly, and not fun for people who struggle from paycheck to paycheck, but I'm tired pretending they are the only ones dealing with rising COL in Colorado. Now, there are ways to address this for some of these folks, and affordable housing is one option. So, if we fund enough of that (which most folks running right now want), then you can keep some of these folks from having to leave Denver all together. But... at the end of the day, they are renting, and they don't own the place they live in. It sucks, but that's one ugly side of a free-market system.

As I stated, I am for affordable housing and other creative solutions to keep lower-class folks from having to be displaced to the nebulous out of Denver, but the incessant whining with no solutions is getting super super old, and it's a total distraction from the solutions that will make Denver work for all of its citizens. If we sit here and focus on the lower-class, cutting off development, putting in rent control, etc etc, what you end up getting is San Francisco (or Boulder), where only the super poor or affluent can afford to live in.

No thanks. I want a Denver that works for everyone, and unfortunately for those who live in some of these neighborhoods, they need to stop the bitching, put on their big boy/girl pants, and help contribute ideas and solutions to these challenges. This also means the city will continue to grow, develop, and evolve. If you don't like that, get the F out and go move to a suburban cul-de-sac where you know nothing will change there anytime soon.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So that's what we need more of. Unless you are going to argue that the only people who need affordable housing are the people who already have it, and therefore preservation of existing units is the only thing we need. Which would be extremely wrong.

No, I wasn't hanging my hat on that one point. I just thought it was a very fair point to make and it is. Plus, bulldurhamer articulated how there is ongoing variety of 'replacement' units already.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

the "middle" in "missing middle" doesn't mean middle income class. It means middle density. The entire point is that middle density buildings are the most inherently affordable type of building. If we want to provide more deeply affordable housing, middle density development is the only path that really works.

It depends. And you sort of gloss over the various factors in favor of simplistic math and examples.

Yes, it's true that sprawl has been the historical way of creating affordability. "Drive til you qualify" etc. That can still work, at least in an area like Denver where there hasn't been much 'sprawl' towards the east/NE.

OTOH, to CherryCreek's excellent point I'll give you another great example. Just to the west of downtown/mid-town Phoenix one can rent a single family home much cheaper than a Camden built 3 or 4-story apartments in Scottsdale. More affordable in Scottsdale goes to a different point you've made in the past; when newer units become 30 years old they (typically) become more affordable. But the overwhelming driver is desirability-demand.

With respect to a neighborhood like Curtis Park, Five Points etc. why build 'missing middle' 3-stories when you could just as easily build 5 stories or even 8-10 stories or all of the above. When it comes to simple math, 5-10 stories adds up a lot faster than 3 stories.

Today there are also plenty of neighborhoods not necessarily close in where increased density of any kind would be advantageous to those already living in a relatively affordable area ie SW Denver.

Lastly, as a Transit Guy, I fail to understand why you ignore bulldurhamer's excellent point about (soon) eight different rail transit corridors providing access to more affordability than you can shake a stick at.


Source

Originally Posted by twister244

No thanks. I want a Denver that works for everyone, and unfortunately for those who live in some of these neighborhoods, they need to stop the bitching, put on their big boy/girl pants, and help contribute ideas and solutions to these challenges. This also means the city will continue to grow, develop, and evolve. If you don't like that, get the F out and go move to a suburban cul-de-sac where you know nothing will change there anytime soon.

Only gave a quick read but I suspect the above would largely be my response. And btw, Denver really is doing a solid job of providing genuine affordable housing.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by twister244

Damn... just filling out that office market a bit more now..... Even I am starting to wonder if we can get T2 off the ground now with this kind of announcement. Maybe if we didn't have so many planned spaces going up in RiNo, the chances would be better. But, either way, I'm happy with this news. Just means Denver growth is continuing. The article doesn't indicate any incentivxes were used for this, is that correct?

I just saw a post from Governor Polis indicating that no subsidies or tax credits were used for Amazon's recent expansion.

[TakeFive]

Another point I've made a few times but worth repeating

is why do people get so hyper-focused on specific neighborhoods including long-established areas with a lot of historically significant housing and keep forgetting or overlooking vast areas of already vacant land or land already designated for redevelopment.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Lastly, as a Transit Guy, I fail to understand why you ignore bulldurhamer's excellent point about (soon) eight different rail transit corridors providing access to more affordability than you can shake a stick at.

TakeFive, you don't live here. Actually using those rail corridors for anything besides rush hour commuting in/out of downtown is worthless. You can't live a car free or car-lite lifestyle in close proximity to the vast majority of light/commuter rail stops. Bulldhurhamer just wants to keep those of us who didn't have the cosmic fortune of being born in Five Points out of his neighborhood and over on the other side of the Urban Wall.

Denver's footprint of gridded and walkable pre-1920s neighborhoods is actually massive (and poorly served by rail transit), but overwhelmingly low density. Sorry, but we shouldn't have to choose between overvalued-due-to-artificial-scarcity single family homes/townhomes in the city, or the aging, split-level banlieues. Those neighborhoods are not going to be desirable for an urbanist in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

why do people get so hyper-focused on specific neighborhoods including long-established areas with a lot of historically significant housing and keep forgetting or overlooking vast areas of already vacant land or land already designated for redevelopment.

We need both. And those specific neighborhoods are extremely desirable for a reason. And frankly as a centrist, I'd expect you'd appreciate the idea of a property owner being free to sell their land to either a) four moderate income households bidding together to build a four plex or b) a wealthy household desiring to build a scrape. From a property rights perspective, why outlaw the former but allow the latter?

[Denver Dweller]

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/04/3...lorado-senate/