HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5501  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 2:35 AM
Denver Dweller Denver Dweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 828
A West Colfax parking lot could become 320 homes, half of them affordable

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5502  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 3:24 AM
CONative's Avatar
CONative CONative is offline
Mile High Guy
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
As a resident of Willow Park East, I celebrate the Beeler Park retail- I'm going to abuse the hell out of that Taco Bell as I hit that drive through.

Beeler Park retail could certainly be better- but it's also driven by what what the developer can secure from a retail standpoint. Seeing the amount of effort that the developer put into trying to secure some more than a gas station, a carwash, and a dentist was encouraging. But it's also incredibly disheartening that all they could get was a gas station, a carwash, and a dentist and how many retailers turned them down (Mad Greens are morons). Hell, the strip mall along North field, err the "town center" ended up with an expansion to the MCA on a prime corner because the alternative the developer was getting from the private market was a mattress store.

My hunch is that North Stapleton is ten years from getting some "cool" retail.
I've got you all beat. I've lived in all sides of Stapleton in the past 14 years. First, I was one of the youngest buyers with my builder in Eastbridge in 2005 and lived there for 2 years... then rented in South End for 1 year while building... and subsequently lived in Central Park North for 7 years, then built and lived in Willow Park East for 3 years, and finally bought my first re-sale Stapleton house in South End a year ago and got the Infinity home I always liked for years. So, I know what it's like to live on all sides of Stapleton. I felt somewhat isolated in WPE -- even though we were only 6 blocks from Northfield retail. I kind of felt "away" from everything, and friends always said we were "so far up there" when visiting our WPE house. Although I do still like Northfield retail (not just the mall, but the businesses north of Northfield Blvd too) and the "feel" up there. I felt a little isolated in Eastbridge too when it was in its infancy, and was part of the initial community planning of the Eastbridge Town Center there...but I knew it would become something more eventually (and it did). Central Park North was a nice location, but not very walkable to a lot of things at the time (except now it's very close to the future and exciting TOD opportunities and rail station). I love South End and the mature aspect of it. I can walk to Stanley Marketplace, the shops/restaurants/gym and retail along the south side of CPB or Montview. The Eastbridge and 29th Town Centers are a brisk walk away or a short bike ride, and it's closer to the city and central Denver than the other Stapleton hoods...

Many folks focus on the 29th, Eastbridge, Northfield Town/Power Centers...but forget there IS scattered retail and such throughout Stapleton. Not every business/retail area in Stapleton is on the "edges" of the development. On top of the Town Centers and Northfield Power Center....you have the retail/shops in the South End at CPB & 23rd to Montview, the liquor store/dry cleaner/small restaurant off MLK & Uinta, Punch Bowl Social, the small retail area at CPB and 40th, the independent retail area at CPB & Northfield, the small retail/commercial strip at CPB & Prairie Meadows, and now the soon-to-be retail/commercial at CPB & 56th and at CPB and Montview. Yes, most of it (not all) is off of CPB...but CPB is also pretty walkable to get to for most Stapleton residents. By no means am I saying that it's some urban oasis in Stapleton, but it's pretty decent for a development of 7.5 square miles. I think too many expected a Belmar in a very large 7.5 square mile area (sorry, not realistic). Stapleton was never supposed to be an Uptown. However, it does have a lot of walkable (and definitely bikeable) areas to get to shops, retail, doctors, dry cleaners, restaurants, etc, etc. I still believe that Stapleton has somewhat fulfilled the "new-urban" (not urban) promise from years ago and still has opportunity to fill in the gaps of more mixed-use and walkable aspects. The vacant parcels mentioned are almost always the hold-outs for Forest City's/Brookfield's plan for higher density housing (usually low-income). However, it has been difficult to find developers that want those parcels. Slowly, but surely the higher density (and low-income development) is coming in though. Stapleton is quite dense for an outer-city-of-Denver neighborhood, and isn't as single-family as many think. There is quite a bit of multi-family housing in Stapleton...and a lot of it is mixed right in with the SF homes. I agree with and know that Forest City has tried to lure more independent, mom & pop businesses that "Stapletonites" want, but so many of those desired retailers have simply said "no", and you can't fault any developer when someone (i.e. Taco Bell) is eager to purchase/lease. Also, I tend to think many Stapletonites and non-Stapleton haters forget or ignore the scattered areas of retail/shop spots I just mentioned ....AND the fact we DO have A LOT of those "independent" stores/restaurants throughout Stapleton already. Many of them are owned by residents of Stapleton, and I'm not just referring to the many Stapleton dentists that live and work here, but also the restaurants, shops, store front businesses that are independently owned in Stapleton by Denver area or Stapleton residents.

Not to mention, every Stapleton resident can't complain about the lack of park/open space...since there is plethora of pocket parks and larger city of Denver parks within Stapleton to enjoy, play, swim, jog, and get on the miles of bike paths.

I said this many years ago on this forum... that people were quick to judge BEFORE the development matures and has a chance to fill in the gaps. Again, it's almost 8 SQUARE MILES! Give it time. Things are coming into place and will get better (as some of you have mentioned) as the vast area known as Stapleton ages and matures.

With that....I have small street-retail, restaurant, eye doctor, insurance company, convenience store, etc -- all within a couple blocks of me. There is also more retail going to be built at the corner of Montview & CPB (wow...ANOTHER Stapleton retail spot that isn't in a Town/Power Center?). The only small negative is how close we are to some higher crime zips of Denver and Aurora, but it's part of city life and the crime isn't really that bad and hasn't affected us. We do love being able to drive downtown and Cherry Creek with much more ease than when we were in WPE.
__________________
-D-

Last edited by CONative; May 1, 2019 at 4:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5503  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 4:58 AM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
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.
Depends on land costs. In many cities, any good transit-served lot with multifamily zoning will tend to go in the three figures per square foot, or four figures if there's highrise zoning. At even $100/sf, an acre is $4,356,000, so you'd better spread that among say 100-200 units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5504  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 1:47 PM
mr1138 mr1138 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by CONative View Post
I think too many expected a Belmar in a very large 7.5 square mile area (sorry, not realistic). Stapleton was never supposed to be an Uptown.
Interesting post - you make a lot of good points.

I wanted to highlight the specific point above though, because this is always the impression I have gotten about people's perceived disappointment as well. The TOD area alone is about the size of Belmar, and (as discussed several pages back), is only just starting to get off the ground. Sometimes I think people fail to do some basic math in their head about just how many residential units would yield from an "uptown" density development the size of Stapleton.

The 2017 ACS estimates there are a little over 20,000 residents in Stapleton today - about 7,000 dwelling units (including Northfield). Now, I understand there are a LOT of variables to make assumptions about, but let's just say we only look at the land south of I-70. Use a moderate 18 dwelling units per acre for "uptown" style density, and assume occupancy of 2.5 persons per unit, and we're already talking over 100,000 people.

That would be ambitious even in today's Denver, and downright unrealistic given what was known by developers and investors in the early 2000s (or, more realistically, 1990s when the planning was done). Not only that, it would be COMPLETELY out of place in that location so far east of Downtown - the majority of which lies beyond walking distance of the Commuter Rail station.

I have heard others on here describe Stapleton as a "better kind of suburb," and I think that's pretty much accurate. Another way to describe it could be that it's a new version of the kind of neighborhood that Denver already has a ton of - a Streetcar Suburb without the Streetcar.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5505  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 2:00 PM
COtoOC's Avatar
COtoOC COtoOC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO (Stapleton)
Posts: 1,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by CONative View Post
I've got you all beat. I've lived in all sides of Stapleton in the past 14 years. First, I was one of the youngest buyers with my builder in Eastbridge in 2005 and lived there for 2 years... then rented in South End for 1 year while building... and subsequently lived in Central Park North for 7 years, then built and lived in Willow Park East for 3 years, and finally bought my first re-sale Stapleton house in South End a year ago and got the Infinity home I always liked for years. So, I know what it's like to live on all sides of Stapleton. I felt somewhat isolated in WPE -- even though we were only 6 blocks from Northfield retail. I kind of felt "away" from everything, and friends always said we were "so far up there" when visiting our WPE house. Although I do still like Northfield retail (not just the mall, but the businesses north of Northfield Blvd too) and the "feel" up there. I felt a little isolated in Eastbridge too when it was in its infancy, and was part of the initial community planning of the Eastbridge Town Center there...but I knew it would become something more eventually (and it did). Central Park North was a nice location, but not very walkable to a lot of things at the time (except now it's very close to the future and exciting TOD opportunities and rail station). I love South End and the mature aspect of it. I can walk to Stanley Marketplace, the shops/restaurants/gym and retail along the south side of CPB or Montview. The Eastbridge and 29th Town Centers are a brisk walk away or a short bike ride, and it's closer to the city and central Denver than the other Stapleton hoods...

Many folks focus on the 29th, Eastbridge, Northfield Town/Power Centers...but forget there IS scattered retail and such throughout Stapleton. Not every business/retail area in Stapleton is on the "edges" of the development. On top of the Town Centers and Northfield Power Center....you have the retail/shops in the South End at CPB & 23rd to Montview, the liquor store/dry cleaner/small restaurant off MLK & Uinta, Punch Bowl Social, the small retail area at CPB and 40th, the independent retail area at CPB & Northfield, the small retail/commercial strip at CPB & Prairie Meadows, and now the soon-to-be retail/commercial at CPB & 56th and at CPB and Montview. Yes, most of it (not all) is off of CPB...but CPB is also pretty walkable to get to for most Stapleton residents. By no means am I saying that it's some urban oasis in Stapleton, but it's pretty decent for a development of 7.5 square miles. I think too many expected a Belmar in a very large 7.5 square mile area (sorry, not realistic). Stapleton was never supposed to be an Uptown. However, it does have a lot of walkable (and definitely bikeable) areas to get to shops, retail, doctors, dry cleaners, restaurants, etc, etc. I still believe that Stapleton has somewhat fulfilled the "new-urban" (not urban) promise from years ago and still has opportunity to fill in the gaps of more mixed-use and walkable aspects. The vacant parcels mentioned are almost always the hold-outs for Forest City's/Brookfield's plan for higher density housing (usually low-income). However, it has been difficult to find developers that want those parcels. Slowly, but surely the higher density (and low-income development) is coming in though. Stapleton is quite dense for an outer-city-of-Denver neighborhood, and isn't as single-family as many think. There is quite a bit of multi-family housing in Stapleton...and a lot of it is mixed right in with the SF homes. I agree with and know that Forest City has tried to lure more independent, mom & pop businesses that "Stapletonites" want, but so many of those desired retailers have simply said "no", and you can't fault any developer when someone (i.e. Taco Bell) is eager to purchase/lease. Also, I tend to think many Stapletonites and non-Stapleton haters forget or ignore the scattered areas of retail/shop spots I just mentioned ....AND the fact we DO have A LOT of those "independent" stores/restaurants throughout Stapleton already. Many of them are owned by residents of Stapleton, and I'm not just referring to the many Stapleton dentists that live and work here, but also the restaurants, shops, store front businesses that are independently owned in Stapleton by Denver area or Stapleton residents.

Not to mention, every Stapleton resident can't complain about the lack of park/open space...since there is plethora of pocket parks and larger city of Denver parks within Stapleton to enjoy, play, swim, jog, and get on the miles of bike paths.

I said this many years ago on this forum... that people were quick to judge BEFORE the development matures and has a chance to fill in the gaps. Again, it's almost 8 SQUARE MILES! Give it time. Things are coming into place and will get better (as some of you have mentioned) as the vast area known as Stapleton ages and matures.

With that....I have small street-retail, restaurant, eye doctor, insurance company, convenience store, etc -- all within a couple blocks of me. There is also more retail going to be built at the corner of Montview & CPB (wow...ANOTHER Stapleton retail spot that isn't in a Town/Power Center?). The only small negative is how close we are to some higher crime zips of Denver and Aurora, but it's part of city life and the crime isn't really that bad and hasn't affected us. We do love being able to drive downtown and Cherry Creek with much more ease than when we were in WPE.
As an almost 14 year Stapleton resident, I agree. I've been relatively patient and it's paid off. Although we've stuck it out in the same house the entire time! Plus, I can't think of a better place to raise our kids. We have so many neighbors who are like family to us, and our kids have grown up with so many kids their own age. They have so many friends to play with and parks everywhere. They're growing up like kids did in the 70s, rather than the typical suburban isolation where no one is outside and you have to schedule playdates with other kids.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5506  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 2:34 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Quote:
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.
Because "go somewhere else" border xenophobia/NIMBYism is never an acceptable answer.

If people want to live in TODs 15 miles away, that's great and they should. But we should not be forcing them to. The law should not be preventing people from living where they want, and where they could afford if it were not for laws that excluded them.

To insist otherwise is a moral failing. You cannot hide behind "people should live where it's within their means" because the city *would be* affordable if not for the selfish NIMBY laws we've enacted that prevent it.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5507  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 2:49 PM
Ich Ich is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr1138 View Post
Interesting post - you make a lot of good points.

I wanted to highlight the specific point above though, because this is always the impression I have gotten about people's perceived disappointment as well. The TOD area alone is about the size of Belmar, and (as discussed several pages back), is only just starting to get off the ground. Sometimes I think people fail to do some basic math in their head about just how many residential units would yield from an "uptown" density development the size of Stapleton.

The 2017 ACS estimates there are a little over 20,000 residents in Stapleton today - about 7,000 dwelling units (including Northfield). Now, I understand there are a LOT of variables to make assumptions about, but let's just say we only look at the land south of I-70. Use a moderate 18 dwelling units per acre for "uptown" style density, and assume occupancy of 2.5 persons per unit, and we're already talking over 100,000 people.

That would be ambitious even in today's Denver, and downright unrealistic given what was known by developers and investors in the early 2000s (or, more realistically, 1990s when the planning was done). Not only that, it would be COMPLETELY out of place in that location so far east of Downtown - the majority of which lies beyond walking distance of the Commuter Rail station.

I have heard others on here describe Stapleton as a "better kind of suburb," and I think that's pretty much accurate. Another way to describe it could be that it's a new version of the kind of neighborhood that Denver already has a ton of - a Streetcar Suburb without the Streetcar.
I disagree with this. Denver is about to run out of available infill space and it’s short sighted suburban mentality that has landed us with many of the problems we all are complaining about. If it had uptown density then we would have been able to utilize mass transit, build smaller (affordable) housing, and reduce traffic in the surrounding area. I’m glad you all like your family friendly sfh neighborhood but also realize it’s not as inclusive as neighborhoods such as Capital Hill and not attainable for most (with the exception of the very few affordable neighborhoods which are almost impossible to qualify for). That’s what the Highlands Ranch and Parker’s are for. The nice thing about the outskirts is there is so much land available that it decreases the housing prices so even a sfh is attainable to most. Stapleton and Lowry have always been inner city. And maybe 20 years ago 100000 seemed crazy but now seeing the housing issues and diminishing available land has driven up land prices it makes attainable housing for most significantly more difficult.

The reason why Stapleton is the way it is, was because it was meant to be a suburb with an urban feel. When it was planned out, it was during the time when people were flocking to the suburbs and forest city designed it have a similar feel. Not too mention, sfh stopped a lot of the park hill residents from coming over. There were gripes of not putting in Whole Foods because they Park Hill peeps ruined the KS and Quebec Square. The intention of North Field was to be high end and keep them away but they missed up by building too much retail with out the residential to support it. North Field was the biggest mistake per Forest City.

So in my opinion both Lowry and Stapleton are a lost opportunity to create sustainable growth
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5508  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 4:47 PM
bulldurhamer bulldurhamer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Because "go somewhere else" border xenophobia/NIMBYism is never an acceptable answer.

If people want to live in TODs 15 miles away, that's great and they should. But we should not be forcing them to. The law should not be preventing people from living where they want, and where they could afford if it were not for laws that excluded them.

To insist otherwise is a moral failing. You cannot hide behind "people should live where it's within their means" because the city *would be* affordable if not for the selfish NIMBY laws we've enacted that prevent it.
Why is the planner accusing me of xenophobia? My brother would love to move to Denver and buy a house downtown. He probably can't right now. I've suggested he look in other parts of the metro that he might be able to afford.
I guess I'm a xenophobic nimbyer? gtfo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5509  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 5:00 PM
bulldurhamer bulldurhamer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
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.
i'm arguing again that's it's absurd to think that just because you want to live within footsteps of coors field that you don't necessarily get to just because.

you want to jam in your "missing middle" for the upper classes go ahead. that 400K$ apartment referenced as some kind of "affordable" option is hilarious.

meanwhile it's the true affordable housing that's getting converted. the missing middle is found. it's the Lost Lower that we need to worry more about here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5510  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 5:08 PM
twister244 twister244 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldurhamer View Post
i'm arguing again that's it's absurd to think that just because you want to live within footsteps of coors field that you don't necessarily get to just because.

you want to jam in your "missing middle" for the upper classes go ahead. that 400K$ apartment referenced as some kind of "affordable" option is hilarious.

meanwhile it's the true affordable housing that's getting converted. the missing middle is found. it's the Lost Lower that we need to worry more about here.
Again, you are missing the bigger picture. You are so fixated on one class of people, without seeing that we need to ensure we have adequate housing for all classes that want to live in Denver. If we have adequate affordable housing being put into place to ensure those being displaced (and that are of lower class), then you shouldn't have a problem with hosts of other housing going in via development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5511  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 5:17 PM
Denvergotback Denvergotback is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Provo
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldurhamer View Post
Why is the planner accusing me of xenophobia? My brother would love to move to Denver and buy a house downtown. He probably can't right now. I've suggested he look in other parts of the metro that he might be able to afford.
I guess I'm a xenophobic nimbyer? gtfo.
Let me get this strait, you tell people to live where you can afford, look to other options if you can't afford a certain area..... buuuuuuttttttttt..... aren't you also the one, the only one, who has been notoriously famous on here for telling wealthier people to stay the f*** out of Cole and Whittier and stop buying real estate in the neighborhood, where they can justifiably afford? Aren't you the angry one who seems to boil red and turn over hell when someone tries to build affordable housing in your neighborhood and offer more jobs to people within the area?

I think that its probably best to avoid Cole and Whittier altogether, why? Because Bulldurhammer said it must be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5512  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 6:36 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,344
Do you believe the only people who need affordable housing in the city core are the people who already have it?

If you believe that, then I don't have much more to say to you.

If you don't believe that, then let's talk about how to provide it.

Those are the only options.
__________________
writing | twitter | flickr | instagram | ssp photo threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5513  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 6:57 PM
CherryCreek's Avatar
CherryCreek CherryCreek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denver Dweller View Post
I see this in the story:

Two of the four nearby neighborhood organizations oppose the project. Some locals worry that traffic will increase, parking spots will decrease, and tall buildings will zap privacy and sunlight.

Zucker knows getting support from locals is a tall order. He calls himself “an uninvited guest.” He also knows Denver desperately needs attainable housing. Building higher means more market-rate homes, and more market-rate homes mean Zocalo can subsidize 160 homes for families and others who need them, Zucker said.


Then there's this from councilman Lopez, who isn't always the most popular on here:

City Councilman Paul López thinks the project will strengthen the neighborhood he represents, not damage it.
A parcel this big is rare, López said, and a developer willing to dedicate half of his project to house lower-income residents is even rarer. So he’s listening.

“I understand not everybody wants it in their neighborhood,” López said. “But because of the opportunity that exists, I don’t mind being unpopular here and there.”

The councilman sponsored the rezoning application so he cannot vote for or against it. If it passes, though, he said it will model how for-profit developers can build ample affordable housing.

López says his first ask of developers looking to build in his district is whether they have an affordable housing component. Most don’t.

“No single drop ever thinks it’s to blame for the flood,” López said.


Very timely comments, given the discussion threads above about affordable housing in Denver. The conflict between existing residents vs. potential future residents.

The bottom line is this: most people are selfish, they support whatever they think helps them. Although you have long-time residents who certainly resist changes to their neighborhoods, I suspect there's also a lot more recent arrivals whose basic attitude is "I got mine, screw you."

That's why policy makers have to balance the demands and interests of each neighborhood with the interests of community as a whole.

I hope the city council approves the request for this development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5514  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 7:50 PM
bulldurhamer bulldurhamer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denvergotback View Post
Let me get this strait, you tell people to live where you can afford, look to other options if you can't afford a certain area..... buuuuuuttttttttt..... aren't you also the one, the only one, who has been notoriously famous on here for telling wealthier people to stay the f*** out of Cole and Whittier and stop buying real estate in the neighborhood, where they can justifiably afford? Aren't you the angry one who seems to boil red and turn over hell when someone tries to build affordable housing in your neighborhood and offer more jobs to people within the area?

I think that its probably best to avoid Cole and Whittier altogether, why? Because Bulldurhammer said it must be.
No, I'm not any of this. Are you retarded?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5515  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 7:54 PM
laniroj laniroj is offline
[sub]urbanite
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by CONative View Post
...The vacant parcels mentioned are almost always the hold-outs for Forest City's/Brookfield's plan for higher density housing (usually low-income). However, it has been difficult to find developers that want those parcels. Slowly, but surely the higher density (and low-income development) is coming in though...
As a developer of high density housing, I can assure you there is no lack of interest in these leftover high density Forest City sites. The lack of interest is on Forest City's part actually making a decision and selling those parcels for development. There is ample interest and capital willing and ready to pursue those lots...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5516  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 7:57 PM
mr1138 mr1138 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ich View Post
I disagree with this. Denver is about to run out of available infill space and it’s short sighted suburban mentality that has landed us with many of the problems we all are complaining about. If it had uptown density then we would have been able to utilize mass transit, build smaller (affordable) housing, and reduce traffic in the surrounding area. I’m glad you all like your family friendly sfh neighborhood but also realize it’s not as inclusive as neighborhoods such as Capital Hill and not attainable for most (with the exception of the very few affordable neighborhoods which are almost impossible to qualify for). That’s what the Highlands Ranch and Parker’s are for. The nice thing about the outskirts is there is so much land available that it decreases the housing prices so even a sfh is attainable to most. Stapleton and Lowry have always been inner city. And maybe 20 years ago 100000 seemed crazy but now seeing the housing issues and diminishing available land has driven up land prices it makes attainable housing for most significantly more difficult.

The reason why Stapleton is the way it is, was because it was meant to be a suburb with an urban feel. When it was planned out, it was during the time when people were flocking to the suburbs and forest city designed it have a similar feel. Not too mention, sfh stopped a lot of the park hill residents from coming over. There were gripes of not putting in Whole Foods because they Park Hill peeps ruined the KS and Quebec Square. The intention of North Field was to be high end and keep them away but they missed up by building too much retail with out the residential to support it. North Field was the biggest mistake per Forest City.

So in my opinion both Lowry and Stapleton are a lost opportunity to create sustainable growth
This is certainly a valid opinion - I realized the notion of 100,000 new residents in such a small area is enough to make any urbanist salivate as soon as I posted that. The idea of holding back, letting most of the land stay vacant for decades, and developing at a much higher density starting at a town core somewhere like 29th Street would certainly be a more sustainable way of ensuring Denver doesn't run out of places to develop anytime soon. It's the way I build my cities in Cities Skylines, and from what I've heard, the way that a lot of cities in the German speaking world do things. But I tend to agree with CONative that it just isn't entirely realistic given how planning and land development gets done around here.

I was about to say that it is unfortunate the neighborhood doesn't have the ability to infill incrementally going forward, but I double-checked the zoning, and many of the single family lots have R-MU-20 zoning. I'm curious if this zoning allows for more density that what was initially built, and perhaps these homes could be redeveloped in the future. Doesn't that zoning actually allow for a lot more density than SFH? If so, then bravo Denver - that's a very "Strong Towns" style approach!

I also have to push back a little on the notion that we are about to run out of infill space. The South Platte River valley from Pepsi Center all the way south to Broadway and Alameda, for one, seems to be an ENORMOUS well of untapped land that people often forget about. River Mile alone stands to totally reshape the way we think of our city. Other places calling out for this kind of development include 41st and Fox and the remaining Platte Valley rail yards (the yard north of 38th and Blake jumps off the map every time I look at it). If anything, we seem to have a problem delivering the right kind of development in these places during boomtimes like we are having right now. And as is being discussed, we seem to lack the political will to allow many of our older neighborhoods to grow incrementally. But I don't think that a shortage of infill sites is the issue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5517  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 7:58 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldurhamer View Post
No, I'm not any of this. Are you retarded?
You sure as hell seem to have anger issues. Maybe you could look into some breathing techniques and some stress-release aroma therapy?
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

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

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5518  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 8:08 PM
bulldurhamer bulldurhamer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Do you believe the only people who need affordable housing in the city core are the people who already have it?

If you believe that, then I don't have much more to say to you.

If you don't believe that, then let's talk about how to provide it.

Those are the only options.
right now property owners and developers are converting LOW income housing into the "middle" $400K condo crap for which was just advocated.

why are you coming at me for this? you want more unaffordable bullshit and i want to protect the true poor people in the neighborhood.

beyond that, i understand that space is limited and we all can't just have magic low income housing appear in areas that are already fully built out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5519  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 8:17 PM
bulldurhamer bulldurhamer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by twister244 View Post
Again, you are missing the bigger picture. You are so fixated on one class of people, without seeing that we need to ensure we have adequate housing for all classes that want to live in Denver. If we have adequate affordable housing being put into place to ensure those being displaced (and that are of lower class), then you shouldn't have a problem with hosts of other housing going in via development.
great, let's build this housing. build the fuck out of it. it still doesn't mean it should have to be within walking distance from LODO. that's the point. denver is big enough where one can do their business without ever having to enter that central business district. we can also put our affordable housing all over the city (but i'm told i'm xenophobic for making such a suggestion).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5520  
Old Posted May 1, 2019, 8:22 PM
wong21fr's Avatar
wong21fr wong21fr is offline
Reluctant Hobbesian
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldurhamer View Post
right now property owners and developers are converting LOW income housing into the "middle" $400K condo crap for which was just advocated.

why are you coming at me for this? you want more unaffordable bullshit and i want to protect the true poor people in the neighborhood.

beyond that, i understand that space is limited and we all can't just have magic low income housing appear in areas that are already fully built out.
People aren't advocating for the $400K, 1-bedroom condo crap when they're talking about the missing middle. They're talking about the modern equivalent of the duplexes, triplexes, quads, and <10 unit apartments that you can't build in the vast majority of the city. That maybe can be built and sold in the $200K range to allow lower income individuals and families the choice of either getting into certain city neighborhoods or making the choice to move out to the burbs for additional sq footage or lot size. This is stuff that should be built in Crestmoor, Stapleton, Hilltop, Virginia Vale, Wash Park, Highlands, Cole, Whittier, etc. All neighborhoods should have these developments, unless something of a larger size makes sense such as downtown, RiNo (errr... Five Points), Cherry Creek, Uptown, LoDo, etc.

Or we can keep on putting pressure on the lower income brackets, leave some subsidized housing for a few true poor people, and really generate some income inequality in the city.
__________________
"You don't strike, you just go to work everyday and do your job real half-ass. That's the American way!" -Homer Simpson

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

Reply With Quote
     
     
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 11:12 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.