DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Brainpathology]

It probably wouldn't be that hard to convince the developer to let the houses be moved after they own them. They are going to be demolishing them anyway. Something similar happened by a lake here in Orlando. You basically got the home for free if you figured out how to move the place. If they are that historic and you can gather enough interest why not ask?

(incidentally no one bit on the houses here and they were all demolished).

[mhays]

Renovation costs often exceed new construction costs. Then there's the land and the moving process...not easy. You do it when the houses have really high value (historical or otherwise) but it's not necessarily a money-saving idea. That's why it's rare.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by rds70

It looks like Eviva Cherokee is officially under construction:

I like that the Golden Triangle is finally starting to buck the trend of the frankly terrible EIFS clad monuments and getting some other character. This one will look great!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by corey

I didn't say the city should start moving houses. I just don't think it is beneficial to tear down houses like these for more of the standard apartment buildings the developers are currently building. The developer in this case is only thinking of the money their going to make and not about the historic fabric of the neighborhood. Tear down the run down p.o.s buildings first. How is tearing down houses like this an improvement? Besides, in this market the owner can easily sell these homes to people how would love to own them.

The property owner doesn't seem to feel that way (nor do buyers or they would be flocking to counter the developers offer), but people who have no interest[ in buying these wonderful houses sure feel confident that they should tell a private property owner what to do with his own buildings and land.

If one feels that way, than move the f**k out of Denver and head to Highlands Ranch. The HOA board down there would welcome such a mind with open arms.

[corey]

In this particular case if the owner listed these houses for sale they would be sold immediately. He never tried to sell them because he was approached by the developer. I do have a problem with tearing down nice 100+ year old buildings for new development. These homes were standing before the guy or the developer were even born. Not necessary.

[corey]

What does Highlands Ranch have to do with any of this? Unless that's where the developer lives, because he surely doesn't live in Jefferdon Park.

[mr1138]

Can't an owner, in a case like that, begin the process to landmark their home? And honestly, isn't that the fairest way to preserve a couple key examples of a particular style/era of structure anyway? I can't honestly say I know much about the process or its costs; it may be prohibitive or have financial consequences (and if so, perhaps those should be eased in any way possible). But it seems like, in principle, an owner who cares enough about the posterity of their home to landmark it is the ideal use of the process. At least unless a structure is so particularly rare or special that it can be landmarked against an owners' will (as maybe the Tabor Opera House should have been).

I think there is something to be said for saving a couple of examples of particularly old or irreplaceable architectural styles. I'd never advocate a "preserve the neighborhood in amber" sort of thing, but allowing for a handfull of something like our painted-shingle Victorians to remain not only adds charm, but reminds us where we came from. It would be great if people who genuinely care about their historic structures could just decide for us which homes these will be. I would guess somebody like the guy in Corey's story would have no problem finding a buyer and still make a healthy profit over what he bought the place for, though it may drop the price from what a scrape-and-develop buyer would offer.

If it gets to the point where there are almost no examples left, then I might get radical and advocate for forced landmarking. But certainly not right now. By and large, this neighborhood, and all neighborhoods really, need to continue evolving and growing. In the long term, most buildings will eventually be a casualty.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by corey

I didn't say the city should start moving houses. I just don't think it is beneficial to tear down houses like these for more of the standard apartment buildings the developers are currently building. The developer in this case is only thinking of the money their going to make and not about the historic fabric of the neighborhood. Tear down the run down p.o.s buildings first. How is tearing down houses like this an improvement? Besides, in this market the owner can easily sell these homes to people how would love to own them.

A) What houses are you talking about (pictures? address? you have to give something)

B) A person can sell their house to whom ever he/she wants. Just because you don't like the new neighbors does not mean the sale should not be able to happen

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by corey

In this particular case if the owner listed these houses for sale they would be sold immediately. He never tried to sell them because he was approached by the developer. I do have a problem with tearing down nice 100+ year old buildings for new development. These homes were standing before the guy or the developer were even born. Not necessary.

I'm on your side.

mr1138... Yup, nicely stated.

Surely the urban fabric is greatly enriched from preserving nice examples of history. Good grief, not every lot has to go for densification; there's still more than ample opportunity for that.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Ryan and I appear in a new Bloomberg Business article about Denver's rent crunch: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-24/where-are-all-the-middle-class-rentals-

Also, you might like this article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. It's doing a year-long series on Atlanta's future and it's poor record on regional cooperation. It recently featured this article on Denver and our relative success in regional cooperation: http://atlantaforward.myajc.com/denver/

Very nice; thanks for the links.
Bloomberg generally does a nice job of imparting good information while being very readable.

“collective civic ambition”... I like it and Dan Chapman even used it as sub-title. And it's true. Atlanta not unlike here in the desert fails in their ability to exercise regional visions and ambitions because it requires regional cooperaton.

I have a couple of theories in addition to the obvious contribution by Tom Clark and friends.

Once Denver had been successfully politically landlocked by the Poundstone amendment and over time including suffering through the mid-1980's downtown depression the surrounding metro area felt no threat from the city and subsequently acquired a protective empathy for the city, the area's namesake and capitol.

Additionally, the metro area's sprawl is very linear as opposed to more circular. It just made more sense for Denver to retain and be the best siting for sports venues. Much the same for cultural facilities. Here, it also comes from Colorado's more outdoor personality etc. Due to the high capital costs and expense of promoting and maintaining cultural facilities, surrounding cities were reluctant to try to compete with Denver preferring to do smaller venues for themselves but support Denver's cultural facilities as the main attractions for regional purposes.

As a result of all of the above the city also became the obvious center for a good transit system. And the rest is history.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by corey

In this particular case if the owner listed these houses for sale they would be sold immediately. He never tried to sell them because he was approached by the developer. I do have a problem with tearing down nice 100+ year old buildings for new development. These homes were standing before the guy or the developer were even born. Not necessary.

Thankfully, that is not your choice.

[Brainpathology]

What is going on out there? Am I just catching too many comments highlighted on facebook for various Denver pages (Imfromdenver, denverinfill) or is the city having a strong uptick in antidevelopment curmudgeons?

What would be incredibly funny, nearly MI inducingly so really, is if this new loud population of morons costs Colorado an Olympics a second time. Imagine convincing the IOC that Denver could handle it (which isn't likely), only to have them sabotage it through some sort of referendum yet again.

[mhays]

Development booms often bring out the nimbys and general curmudgeons. It's happening in my region too.

Since booms tend to follow rising rents, it's also common for people to think the cart caused the horse.

[rml213]

Corey - if you love the houses so much why don't you pool some money together and move them? No? Then there is simply nothing you can really do about what a developer and landOWNER decides to do with the property or properties.

Welcome to the city - a growing one indeed.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by rml213

Corey - if you love the houses so much why don't you pool some money together and move them? No? Then there is simply nothing you can really do about what a developer and landOWNER decides to do with the property or properties.

Welcome to the city - a growing one indeed.

Maybe I missed it but I didn't find where Corey wanted to override landOWNER rights nor did I see where the landOWNER in this case wanted to sell his properties to the developer?

Somebody please s'plain to me how 20/30 years from now that building larger footprint tenements is better than blocks where development is broken up into smaller vertical footprints mixed in with historically significant homes?

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by mhays

Development booms often bring out the nimbys and general curmudgeons. It's happening in my region too.

Since booms tend to follow rising rents, it's also common for people to think the cart caused the horse.

I have been hearing A LOT of this lately. There is a real perception that the developers are leading the gentrification wave. If only we just kicked the developers out (or to a lot of people... if we had never let them in to begin with), it would still be the "good old days" of $550 a month for 650 square feet in the city center.

They may have a point in that the development/gentrification wave is arguably linked to the decades of infrastructure improvements, re-zonings, promotion of the city, etc. If there had never been a mayor Pena, we had no DIA, the CPV was still a polluted wasteland, and there was no light rail, no Coors Field, no expanded convention center, etc. then yes... the city center would probably still be affordable. But clearly that ship has sailed, and limiting supply at this point would only make things more expensive.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but I don't think an alternate reality where the revitalization of central Denver never happened in the first place should be lamented in any way. There seem to be a lot of people out there though that feel that way. I hear way too much along the lines of "Let the rich people build their gated communities, and the urban hipsters move to the coastal cities... we just want our sleepy 80s-90s Denver preserved forever."

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Maybe I missed it but I didn't find where Corey wanted to override landOWNER rights nor did I see where the landOWNER in this case wanted to sell his properties to the developer?

Somebody please s'plain to me how 20/30 years from now that building larger footprint tenements is better than blocks where development is broken up into smaller vertical footprints mixed in with historically significant homes?

In some of our eyes, yes it's not necessarily better, but who are we really to say what the landowner does with their own land? We don't know the full story behind these houses, it could very well be that they have deteriorated to the point where it would be prohibitively costly to restore, keeping in mind that large restorations sometimes also have to meet modern codes which can also add more expense.

I used to do structural evaluations of old homes in and around the Denver area, and let me tell you, when you get underneath these things and look at the foundations and structure, it can be pretty eye opening as to the poor condition. I have seen huge floor beams that are only being held up with randomly stacked blocks of wood, cans, or whatever else they could find....extremely cracked foundations...deteriorated and cracked structural beams, roof purlins, etc. etc. These were often times for people trying to sell, and it was sometime heartbreaking to tell them the place they were selling for 250k (this was a while back) needs $60k worth of repairs to get it up to some semblance of safe structural integrity.

In 20-30 years, it could be that these houses might not even be standing anymore without major structural repairs needed, we don't really know, and I doubt the current owner would have the funds or desire to take on the needed repairs if his return on investment would be minimal. So then its either sell to a developer, or someone like a historic society or the DURA comes in and buys the block and does the repairs. But if the places are just "nice old homes with character" and not of any other intrinsic historic significance, you will never get DURA in there to do that.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

In some of our eyes, yes it's not necessarily better, but who are we really to say what the landowner does with their own land?

Again, I didn't see where the landowner was interested in selling to the developer?

But yeah, I hear ya. In fact I need to bookmark that comment as I recently tried to convey the essence of what you explain in a different context and city/thread but my comment was neither very clear nor concise (LOL).

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Somebody please s'plain to me how 20/30 years from now that building larger footprint tenements is better than blocks where development is broken up into smaller vertical footprints mixed in with historically significant homes?

False dilemma. That is not the choice we are up against. Nobody is going to build smaller footprints adding up to the same number of units, it doesn't work that way. (Also, "smaller vertical footprints" presumes you can go more vertical to spare a larger footprint - in Denver, we have made exactly the opposite choice through our zoning policy.)

Also, "historically significant homes" assumes something that may not be true. And for two single-family homes in any neighborhood, likely is not true. There is no shortage of old single family housing stock in Denver - quite the contrary, our core neighborhoods are mostly made up of old homes. That is not the same thing as "historically significant," which means something very specific. For your edification, here are the criteria under the City Code:

Sec. 30-3. Criteria for designation of structures and districts for preservation.

If a structure or district maintains its historic or physical integrity, it may be designated for preservation if it meets at least one (1) criterion in two (2) or more of the following three (3) categories:

(1) History. To have historical significance, the structure or district shall be thirty (30) or more years old or have extraordinary importance to the historical development of Denver, and shall:

a. Have direct association with the historical development of the city, state, or nation;
b. Be the site of a significant historic event; or
c. Have direct and substantial association with a person or group of persons who had influence on society.

(2) Architecture. To have architectural significance, the structure or district shall have design quality and integrity, and shall:

a. Embody distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type;
b. Be a significant example of the work of a recognized architect or master builder;
c. Contain elements of architectural design, engineering, materials, craftsmanship, or artistic merit which represent a significant or influential innovation; or
d. Portray the environment of a group of people or physical development of an area in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style.

(3) Geography. To have geographical significance, the structure or district shall:

a. Have a prominent location or be an established, familiar, and orienting visual feature of the contemporary city;
b. Promote understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics or rarity; or
c. Make a special contribution to Denver's distinctive character.

In evaluating whether the criteria of history, architecture and geography are met, the landmark preservation commission ("commission") shall consider how a structure or district relates to one (1) or more historic contexts or themes.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Civic Center - 09 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr

Compliments and credits to our MOD.

"$5 billion invested in downtown Denver development over last 5 years"
Jun 30, 2015 by Molly Armbrister, Denver Business Journal

"More people are living and working downtown than ever before, creating a strong demand for development," said Tami Door, president and CEO of the Downtown Denver Partnership. "It's clear that our collective community efforts to build a world-class center city, and to achieve our vision of an economically healthy, growing and vital downtown are attracting investors and developers alike."

I do see some caution flags ahead but I'll save my thoughts.