DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Sam Hill]

I re-read the last couple pages and based upon the way the conversation flows, I think Ken may have hastily made the “citywide” comment out of grievance (“rest of the city” were the actual words). In context, it feels like there could be a bit of facetiousness to it. But I can’t read minds.

Either way, I feel compelled to offer a more nuanced response to this particular comment:

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Pedestrians are at the top of the priority pyramid for use of the public ROW in Denver, followed by bikes/scooters. Motorists are at the bottom, so if anyone is to be inconvenienced, it is motorists.

The above I agree with. For safety purposes, that’s the way it should be. But we have to be practical. In neighborhoods with sparse foot traffic, RTOR bans would be, as I said, disruptive and superfluous.

However, due to car-brain, most motorists think it is the other way around and demand to be catered to and/or express outrage when they are not given priority on any given street segment.

This, however, I don’t think is true. Suburbanites maybe. But not most of us city people who live in the core and account for most of the vehicle traffic within the core. As pedestrians, it can oftentimes feel like a car-brain danger zone, so I get it.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Bikes need more of their own right of way, all over town. I just got back from a trip to Amsterdam and Rotterdam a few days ago. Bike infrastructure there is amazing as I’m sure you know. Cars and bikes basically never share same spaces, and that’s the way it should be.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I came to the same conclusion after visting the Netherland 10 years ago and going back again in 2016. Even though I'm not a huge bicyler, the separated bike facilities are AMAZING. They make bicycling seem easy, fun, and convenient, and even make the pedestrian experience more pleasant by spacing the sidewalk out further from the cars and sometimes adding additional landscaping if the space allows.

I would point out that those fantasitc Dutch facilities include protected intersections that cannot, unless I'm mistaken, ever allow RTOR - not turning on red is built right in to the design and it is intuitive.


Now that we have protected bike lanes on many streets, especially downtown ones, this conversation about no RTOR (and whether is should be limited to selected intersections) can't help but raise the question for me of - is Denver considering any of these protected intersections? Boulder is about to open its first, and - to my knoweldge - Denver has none.

I would take good protected bike lanes and protected intersections over silly little roundabouts like the ones on 7th Ave anyway. I'd also point out that it isn't necessarily true that "Cars and bikes basically never share same spaces" using the Dutch Approach. In fact, on a street like 7th Ave, the Dutch would probably do something that looks like this. I think they tend to reserve the separated facilities for streets with higher traffic volumes. Notice they aren't using intersection rounadbouts at all - instead they have changed the street itself so everything moves slower (and I bet you can still get a fire truck through).

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I would take good protected bike lanes and protected intersections over silly little roundabouts like the ones on 7th Ave anyway. I'd also point out that it isn't necessarily true that "Cars and bikes basically never share same spaces" using the Dutch Approach. In fact, on a street like 7th Ave, the Dutch would probably do something that looks like this. I think they tend to reserve the separated facilities for streets with higher traffic volumes. Notice they aren't using intersection rounadbouts at all - instead they have changed the street itself so everything moves slower (and I bet you can still get a fire truck through).

There are lots of good examples of how it could be done better than 7th Avenue. Our problems are (1) true incompetence amongst those responsible for the vision, and (2) money - we have very little. Which is why we get to cheap black bumpers that, I can only assume, are made from recycled tires that DOTI leadership grind down and glue together at home in their suburban backyards.

[mojiferous]

Is one of you Randall Munroe? Because today's XKCD is eerily similar to this conversation

xkcd.com https://xkcd.com/2832/

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There are lots of good examples of how it could be done better than 7th Avenue. Our problems are (1) true incompetence amongst those responsible for the vision, and (2) money - we have very little. Which is why we get to cheap black bumpers that, I can only assume, are made from recycled tires that DOTI leadership grind down and glue together at home in their suburban backyards.

It's true - many of these solutions require $$$$ that we don't have. I'm just getting tired of the impromptu, ad hoc solutions, and I get the feeling that the community is too. Honestly, in a post-pandemic environment, I'm not sure we should be giving so much attention to a street like 7th Avenue at all - we have bigger problems and we certainly can't afford to Netherlandsify every neighborhood street in town right now (we can't even afford to fix the sidewalks).

Instead, I want CIP projects - I just want them rooted in 21st century urban design principles. We should be working with the NACTO playbook, not highway standards (and, to give credit where it is due, some cities in our region are really now moving more in that direction).

If it takes more time and we can only do a few projects at a time - that's fine. Let's do that and stop using resources on the made-in-your-basement solutions.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Is one of you Randall Munroe? Because today's XKCD is eerily similar to this conversationURL="https://xkcd.com/2832/"]https://xkcd.com/2832/[/URL]

Not me. My reading and podcasts are pretty squarely focused on college football. At least until Prime gets thumped a few times and we can all move on to our real goal: bowl eligibility. Preferably someplace warm and as late in December as possible.

Originally Posted by mr1138

It's true - many of these solutions require $$$$ that we don't have. I'm just getting tired of the impromptu, ad hoc solutions, and I get the feeling that the community is too. Honestly, in a post-pandemic environment, I'm not sure we should be giving so much attention to a street like 7th Avenue at all - we have bigger problems and we certainly can't afford to Netherlandsify every neighborhood street in town right now (we can't even afford to fix the sidewalks).

Instead, I want CIP projects - I just want them rooted in 21st century urban design principles. We should be working with the NACTO playbook, not highway standards (and, to give credit where it is due, some cities in our region are really now moving more in that direction).

If it takes more time and we can only do a few projects at a time - that's fine. Let's do that and stop using resources on the made-in-your-basement solutions.

Well said. Totally agree.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not me. My reading and podcasts are pretty squarely focused on college football. At least until Prime gets thumped a few times and we can all move on to our real goal: bowl eligibility. Preferably someplace warm and as late in December as possible.

Buffs are 21 pt underdogs today. I watched Oregon play couple of weeks ago. They didn't look that special... but more just totally solid as apposed to flashy.

Originally Posted by mr1138

It's true - many of these solutions require $$$$ that we don't have. I'm just getting tired of the impromptu, ad hoc solutions, and I get the feeling that the community is too. Honestly, in a post-pandemic environment, I'm not sure we should be giving so much attention to a street like 7th Avenue at all - we have bigger problems and we certainly can't afford to Netherlandsify every neighborhood street in town right now (we can't even afford to fix the sidewalks).

There's many interesting observations that could be made about life after COVID. One is that drivers became/are now more aggressive; there's more road rage. There's also the fast growth of juvenile 🞵🞵🞵 violence; the explosion in addiction and homelessness, etc.

The elephant in the room is (all kinds) of diversity versus lack thereof. This could get way off into the weeds but this country is so diverse in so many ways that trying to copy the Netherlands with little diversity would be a fools errand.

It can be hard to fix stupid and this is stupid on steroids but it also goes to issues we face that make establishing an idyllic urban lifestyle nearly impossible.

On the positive side things do change.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Buckle up, because the development community despises lessons and some people would rather recreate the Skyline Urban Renewal Project than lose any margin! https://businessden.com/2023/09/18/veter...fice-buildings-likely-need-to-be-demoed/

If you think upper downtown is not great because of the junkies and crime, wait until those buildings are either a) empty lots waiting for something to be built or b) rotting and boarded up while the owner determines whether it can be demolished.

Reading some Bisnow articles while watching the ASU vs USC game fwiw. They had one article about office conversions in Dallas.

Dallas has either completed or in process to convert six buildings downtown to apartments or in one case converting upper floors of an office building to apartments.

In any case I found this interesting piece about what is going on in Texas, primarily Dallas. One (national) developer likes older buildings for their historical appeal but several tall boys are also being converted.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not me. My reading and podcasts are pretty squarely focused on college football. At least until Prime gets thumped a few times and we can all move on to our real goal: bowl eligibility. Preferably someplace warm and as late in December as possible.

Either ASU is much better than I thought or USC is much worse than advertised. USC, when they weren't fumbling or getting penalties were pretty good on offense but their defense struggled with a very average offense of ASU. ASU has one 'bull' of a runner who's fun to watch but ASU's QB is average.

Next week could be an interesting game. USC looked nowhere near as good as Oregon.

[Fritzdude]

This is so beautiful in its simplicity. I’d rather we have our intersections look like this rather than get a new tallest. Imagine riding your bike without fearing for your life!

[bobg]

Single lane one way streets are perfectly safe to bike on if the cyclist takes the lane. Staying to the right opens you up to close passes and potential intersection right/left hook conflicts.

Most people are too timid to try that though even though giving Cars enough room to pass usually puts you squarely in the door zone.

As to why cyclists do it try getting to a place like Argonaut from bike routes on 16th/12th/11th without taking Washington/Clarkson or worse Colfax. People biking in urban areas are doing it for transportation, and need to get to the same destinations everyone else does.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Actually, there are plenty of maps available as to where these deaths are occuring. And I do not see a single auto-pedestrian accident in Congress Park. Not one. (See https://www.westword.com/news/denver-traffic-deaths-2022-map-update-13801191, https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Citywide-Programs-and-Initiatives/Vision-Zero, etc. etc.)...

Disagree. The definition of a safe pedestrian/bicyclist zone is not that there weren't any people who died or were maimed. There are plenty of vehicle/pedestrian/cyclist incidents in cap hill they just don't rise to the level of permanent bodily harm or death. Perhaps the smaller neighborhood street widths assist in slowing down cars. DOTI touts lower speed limits, which will do nothing. If the road lane width is there, cars will utilize it via speed. This is extensively DOCUMENTED across the globe.

The entirety of the rest of the world has a smaller truck size fleet across the board than the USA. Is it a requirement that we HAVE to accommodate 18 wheelers on collector streets and above? No, it's not. That's a decision that transportation engineers and fire departments make across this country and it has a profound effect on the built environment. Perhaps you disagree, but have you taken a project from beginning to end through planning in the past two decades? If so, and your opinion is different, I'd very much appreciate a referral to your civil and architectural consultants...

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I came to the same conclusion after visting the Netherland 10 years ago and going back again in 2016. Even though I'm not a huge bicyler, the separated bike facilities are AMAZING. They make bicycling seem easy, fun, and convenient, and even make the pedestrian experience more pleasant by spacing the sidewalk out further from the cars and sometimes adding additional landscaping if the space allows.

I would point out that those fantasitc Dutch facilities include protected intersections that cannot, unless I'm mistaken, ever allow RTOR - not turning on red is built right in to the design and it is intuitive.


Now that we have protected bike lanes on many streets, especially downtown ones, this conversation about no RTOR (and whether is should be limited to selected intersections) can't help but raise the question for me of - is Denver considering any of these protected intersections? Boulder is about to open its first, and - to my knoweldge - Denver has none.

I would take good protected bike lanes and protected intersections over silly little roundabouts like the ones on 7th Ave anyway. I'd also point out that it isn't necessarily true that "Cars and bikes basically never share same spaces" using the Dutch Approach. In fact, on a street like 7th Ave, the Dutch would probably do something that looks like this. I think they tend to reserve the separated facilities for streets with higher traffic volumes. Notice they aren't using intersection rounadbouts at all - instead they have changed the street itself so everything moves slower (and I bet you can still get a fire truck through).

You want to overlay a fire truck turning analysis on top of this setup? The fire departments would likely never allow this because their hook n' ladder trucks wouldn't be able to make those right turns (or likely left turns) to service the two story Denver squares. I'm all for it, but the powers that be would likely never let this happen.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

because their hook n' ladder trucks wouldn't be able to make those right turns (or likely left turns) to service the two story Denver squares.

Correction: Three story Denver squares. Thanks to NIMBYs, historic preservation, and the resultant $600/sf home prices, we've almost all finished our attics now, or are in the process of.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Sure, pedestrians jaywalk, and that's OK.

https://denverite.com/2023/01/30/denver-jaywalking-decriminalized/

I'm not sure most of the population knew or cared about any Jaywalking laws so getting rid of them is fine. The intent however was about safety.

Most pedestrians (or people) love to dress in dark colors which are harder to see in general and very hard to see at night. The advantage of crosswalks at intersections is that they're well lit by streetlights. Pedestrians coming from bars and walking in front of cars after dark are putting their lives at risk. Not smart.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

This, however, I don’t think is true. Suburbanites maybe. But not most of us city people who live in the core and account for most of the vehicle traffic within the core. As pedestrians, it can oftentimes feel like a car-brain danger zone, so I get it.

In my experience most drivers respectfully yield to pedestrians, suburbs or city makes no difference. If you've ever passed the driving test then you know that drivers need to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and in general. One does not want to be involved in hitting a pedestrian - not a good thing if you are at fault.

[TakeFive]

In my life context is everything

Originally Posted by laniroj

Disagree. The definition of a safe pedestrian/bicyclist zone is not that there weren't any people who died or were maimed. There are plenty of vehicle/pedestrian/cyclist incidents in cap hill they just don't rise to the level of permanent bodily harm or death. Perhaps the smaller neighborhood street widths assist in slowing down cars. DOTI touts lower speed limits, which will do nothing. If the road lane width is there, cars will utilize it via speed. This is extensively DOCUMENTED across the globe.

For example, during peak periods there's less 'speeding'; it's too busy and you can only go as fast as the car in front of you. During off-peak driving it doesn't matter how wide the roads are, some drivers will be 'in a hurry.' During peak hours accidents happen because drivers aren't paying attention; they're distracted so it's not about speed per se.

We need to pay homage to our under 25 year old drivers who tend to think that driving faster will save them enough time they won't be late to work (or wherever). But generally and obviously most people drive a more moderate speed on residential streets than arterials. Collectors are in between ofc. People in a hurry navigate road width just fine; it's barely relevant if at all.

IMO, wider streets are much easier, more comfortable for bike riders on residential or even collector streets. There's also a benefit of just being able to see the whole road better. It's our macro-vision.

Obviously, drinking or drugging and driving is its own risk.

I know many preach the benefits of better road design; they're not without merit but the vast majority of accidents have little to do with road design.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

In my experience most drivers respectfully yield to pedestrians, suburbs or city makes no difference. If you've ever passed the driving test then you know that drivers need to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks and in general. One does not want to be involved in hitting a pedestrian - not a good thing if you are at fault.

I think we are seeing a classic case of those of different ideological stripes using an entirely different vocabulary.

You speak of "drivers." That's Fox News.

Others speak of "cars." That's MSNBC.

For many on this forum, cars are abstract human-killing (and city-killing) pieces of machinery, divorced from their function as a necessary mobility device for actual humans.

When you speak of drivers, you are taking the opposite stance, normalizing the use of the car.

You probably wear red MAGA hats and eat babies too. (Neither MAGA hats nor babies are anywhere to be found in the natural habitat of the progressive planner, though, so again it's a case of totally not understanding the other side.)

[TakeFive]

^^

Chicago; Chicago
Chicago, Chicago that toddling town
Chicago, Chicago I will show you around
I bet your bottom dollar you'll have some fun in Chicago, Chicago
The town that Billy Sunday couldn't shut down

NEWSBREAK:

Chicago Is The Nation's Leader In Distressed CMBS Debt
September 20, 2023 By Katharine Carlon, Central U.S. Editor - Bisnow

Nearly a quarter of Chicago properties tied to a commercial mortgage-backed security are in some form of distress, the highest rate in the country by a wide margin, per a new report.

Roughly 23% of CMBS loans tied to Chicago buildings were considered either distressed or delinquent in August — about three times the average of 7.2% across the nation’s top 20 markets — according to an analysis by Kroll Bond Rating Agency released Sept. 11.

The city’s distressed rate surpassed second-place Denver (19.1%), Philadelphia (14.2%) and San Francisco (13.9%) and represented a near doubling of the 12.5% rate KBRA reported for Chicago last June.

Denver Ranks Second for CRE Distress Among Top 20 US Metro Cities (KBRA Report)
September 19, 2023 - Mile High CRE

The MSAs with the highest distress rates by property type include New York (retail, 17%), Denver (office, 40.2%), Houston (mixed-use, 75.5%), and San Francisco (lodging, 59.3%; multifamily, 22.7%).

Many of these CRE loans are being extended (at a cost) for a year or two (typically). IMO, the economy is going to get worse before it gets better.

Mix and Match

So last night I heard about the new ABC-WaPo poll which has Trump up on Biden by 10%. Biden's approval rating on the economy is down to 30%.

Anybody noticed their latest bump in auto policy premiums? The higher cost of gas? Groceries which had dropped earlier are now on the rise again.

If you live in the bottom half of the food chain people are being stretched to the max and they're growing ever more frustrated.

Voter's revenge?

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMY, STUPID.

But let me add the growing frustration with crime and homelessness on top.

[TakeFive]

Former Art Institute Building Transformed into Micro Apartments
September 21, 2023 - Mile High CRE

ART STUDIOS -- 1200 N. Lincoln










Photos courtesy of ART STUDIOS and/or Boutique Apartments

At a time when re-inventing downtown Denver commercial buildings into more usable space is top of mind, developer Nichols Partnership has completed the highly anticipated renaissance of the former Art Institute building. Located at 1200 N. Lincoln in the Golden Triangle neighborhood, ART STUDIOS offers 190 studio apartments and two one-bedroom apartments that hit the market in August.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...For example, during peak periods there's less 'speeding'; it's too busy and you can only go as fast as the car in front of you. During off-peak driving it doesn't matter how wide the roads are, some drivers will be 'in a hurry.' During peak hours accidents happen because drivers aren't paying attention; they're distracted so it's not about speed per se...


IMO, wider streets are much easier, more comfortable for bike riders on residential or even collector streets. There's also a benefit of just being able to see the whole road better. It's our macro-vision.

Obviously, drinking or drugging and driving is its own risk.

I know many preach the benefits of better road design; they're not without merit but the vast majority of accidents have little to do with road design.

I don't disagree with your ancillary experience, however data tells us that wider width roads directly correlates with higher vehicle speeds. This is a fact, it's not a wishful urbanism thinking. Higher speeds directly correlate with more traffic deaths (of all kinds). This is a fact, it's not some new urbanism conspiracy. You can argue until you are blue in the face with your personal experience against those facts, but that won't change them.

If we can make the case for smaller travel lane widths, which will allow room for marked bike lanes, it will yield better multi-modal transportation and likely decrease traffic/pedestrian accidents of all kinds. This hasn't been done in our country so there's no telling how it would end up, but if there are two direct correlations and you improve theoretical outcome on each, the logical result would be less accidents overall. This comes at the cost of increased time for vehicle travel, less maneuverability for trucks, inability for giant fire trucks to respond to house fires.

Case in point - 6th Ave:
There are three 11' existing travel lanes - reduce to 9' making 6' of room for cyclists OR remove 1 travel lane and reduce lane widths to 9' providing a additional street section of 15' to work with - bicycle and bus lane, on-street parking + bicycle lane, etc. There are options, we just put the priority on vehicle movements and not other types of movements, community connection, etc.

Another fact folks typically overlook - big wide roads benefit industry and make our economy more efficient broadly speaking. There is potential for micro economies to suffer if we hinder truck access significantly. Not that we can't overcome that, but it's a real long term consideration.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I don't disagree with your ancillary experience, however data tells us that wider width roads directly correlates with higher vehicle speeds. This is a fact, it's not a wishful urbanism thinking. Higher speeds directly correlate with more traffic deaths (of all kinds). This is a fact, it's not some new urbanism conspiracy. You can argue until you are blue in the face with your personal experience against those facts, but that won't change them.

Since you didn't provide a source I found my own. Hope you like it? So you're talking primarily about the city or urban environment. I wouldn't argue the data here or the philosophy.

The relationships between lane widths and vehicle speed is complicated by many factors, including time of day, the amount of traffic present, and even the age of the driver.

Also arterial roads would be different from residential streets or collector streets.

But Here is what I also know:

Top causes for traffic accidents:

1. Distracted Driving - far and away the biggest problem; rear-end crashes are the most common accident on the roads
2. Speeding - We're talking about excessive speed here
3. Drunk and drugged driving - speaks for itself
4. Reckless Driving - speaks for itself
5. Running Intersections - At intersections where a lot of accidents occur a failure to yield is the reason
6. Teenagers - even up to 25 years old are immature drivers, more likely to take unnecessary risks and have poor reactions.
7. Night Driving - Visibility can be a factor but a lot of stupid stuff happens after dark.
8. Unsafe Lane Changes - not as much but some drivers just aren't careful about looking where they're going.
9. Driving lanes too narrow (I kid)

So I'm thinking... Still thinking... Still can't figure how lane width impacts any of the above... but perhaps at the margin.

Yeah, I'm spoiled

Originally Posted by Arizona89A - Arizona state statute for all lanes, freeway and street, is 12 feet. While most cities do this, for some reason, Phoenix, has very narrow lanes, perhaps 11 feet, except in some of the newer areas like Deer Valley, the North Valleys

The 12 feet standard is the current minimum lane width for Interstate highways specified by AASHTO. The portions of I-10 and I-17 with 11-foot wide lanes were probably grandfathered from an older standard.

Anecdotal

When I do rideshare I prefer working NE Phoenix and Scottsdale areas which means I'm on and off the (Loop) 101 freeway. Nice wide lanes with embedded reflectors for night driving. Entering and exiting the freeway usually means ~ half mile merging lanes. During non-peak hours the traffic often flows at 75 mph (speed limit - 65)

I DO NOT prefer the older freeways with 11 foot lanes; too many accidents on those freeways.(Stay away)