DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

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.)

[Cirrus]

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.

[improvisedliving]

Originally Posted by mhays

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.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

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.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

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.

[Cirrus]

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.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by improvisedliving

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.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

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.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

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.

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

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.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

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.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

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.

[mhays]

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.

[Valley Highway]

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.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Valley Highway

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.

[fleury]

THANK YOU. Been following these threads since 07. Has never been this boring. Ya'll are so woke now.

Originally Posted by Valley Highway

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.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Development news:

1). X Denver 3 (22-stories) looks to be under construction now,

2). The 18-story Stonebridge Hotel DTC just demolished the extended stay hotel that it is replacing,

3). I would need confirmation on this but I think The Current in RiNo might have some activity on it

Those are all pretty significant projects. Anybody know an easy way to post photos here from a mobile device? I've struggled obtaining the correct URL link from FlickR and Imgur.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Let's make a lot of rules and have 1 post a week, preferably a share of an article that all of us have read already.

[coolmandan03]

Why not relocate to a Reddit DevelopmentDenver thread? We could more easily manage conversations (where TakeFive, wong21fr, and The Dirt could continue their own conversations in a post) and we could continue discussion on Denver Development?

It's also easier to quote and post images now directly to the feed. I started a subreddit here (that probably wont take off):

https://www.reddit.com/r/DevelopmentDenver/

[Denver Dweller]

Originally Posted by Valley Highway

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 could not agree with you more. I joined this group in 2005 and have enjoyed reading and being a participant. However, my interest in remaining with the group is seriously waning. I could care less what is going on in Phoenix or Seattle, yet we are constantly exposed to happenings there by people who do not even live here. I remember a fellow from Pueblo was banned from this group a few years ago, but I don’t recall that his behavior even remotely approached the level of arrogance that is frequently exhibited in this group.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

I remember a fellow from Pueblo was banned from this group a few years ago, but I don’t recall that his behavior even remotely approached the level of arrogance that is frequently exhibited in this group.

That's why a subreddit is nice, because those types of discussions could stick to their own thread and you don't have to read though that type of uninteresting discussion to you (while others can still have it)

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I think a subreddit is brilliant and I am somewhat shocked that one didn't already exist given the interest in development shown on this forum, DenverInfill, DenverInfill's social media accounts, etc... I joined the subreddit and hope that others do the same.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by fleury

THANK YOU. Been following these threads since 07. Has never been this boring. Ya'll are so woke now.

Been following this thread since 1999, maybe 2000, and I can assure you it has been more boring. The easily bored among you come and go, some missed, most not. But others of us, we are eternal.

Fully expecting one of you instant gratification kids to respond with an “OK, Boomer.” But you don’t have to read if you don’t want. And I am confident none of you do anything so important that you don’t have 15 seconds in your day to scroll and click.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

I remember a fellow from Pueblo was banned from this group a few years ago, but I don’t recall that his behavior even remotely approached the level of arrogance that is frequently exhibited in this group.

People don’t get banned for arrogance, people get banned for personal attacks and outright cruelty. And I don’t mean the “I hurt a millennial’s feelings” type of cruelty.