DENVER | Main Development Thread #6 - Page 232

TakeFive · #**4621** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 7:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

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:

"False dilemma?" Not so. Why would coming up with any precise number of units be the least bit important? Neither do I feel it's significantly important to destroy the existing neighborhood character to please one developer's appetite.

That said, I acknowledged (above) that I don't know the conditions of the subject homes which would be relevant.

Thanks for the criteria needed to obtain an historical designation; that is useful and interesting. But my use of "historically significant" was meant to be intentionally vague to include existing structures that weren't necessarily worthy of any official historic designation but still worthy of preserving for the sake of the neighborhood fabric and general history.

It would be helpful to know the context of the block, neighborhood and zoning. Not sure adding two more lots to "the development" of 4/5 story apartments at the sacrifice of homes if they are indeed in nice condition and good historical examples makes good sense, except for the lust of density.

I'd much rather see a couple of 30-story projects downtown than worry about the added density from these two lots.

CPVLIVE · #**4622** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 7:28 PM**

Photo of the properties in question - Historic designation is being sought for the home on the left.

Full article in the Post -

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_283910...councilman-elects-bid-prevent-demolition

bunt_q · #**4623** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

except for the lust of density.

I don't lust for density, I lust for housing stock. You might not have noticed, but in any given neighborhood in Denver, there's only 2, 3, maybe 4 houses on the market at any given time. And dozens of people trying to purchase them. Personally, I would rather sell to the developer who's willing to put a roof over 20 folks' heads than make way for yet one more rich white person to own an expensive old house in central Denver. Boulder has plenty of Victorian housing stock for those who want and can afford it (so does San Francisco, for that matter). In Denver, if we don't want to become that type of city - and I do not - we'll have to settle for bland filler buildings that regular people can afford.

EngiNerd · #**4624** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

"False dilemma?" Not so. Why would coming up with any precise number of units be the least bit important? Neither do I feel it's significantly important to destroy the existing neighborhood character to please one developer's appetite.

That said, I acknowledged (above) that I don't know the conditions of the subject homes which would be relevant.

Thanks for the criteria needed to obtain an historical designation; that is useful and interesting. But my use of "historically significant" was meant to be intentionally vague to include existing structures that weren't necessarily worthy of any official historic designation but still worthy of preserving for the sake of the neighborhood fabric and general history.

It would be helpful to know the context of the block, neighborhood and zoning. Not sure adding two more lots to "the development" of 4/5 story apartments at the sacrifice of homes if they are indeed in nice condition and good historical examples makes good sense, except for the lust of density.

I'd much rather see a couple of 30-story projects downtown than worry about the added density from these two lots.

For the bolded, isn't the real question, why is this any of our business? I mean, isn't this why we have the form based zoning code in the first place? The lot is zoned for multi-unit, 3 stories...which should be where the city and community at large's input ends as to what's developed there. Are you arguing that the zoning code is not prescriptive enough in what the "looks" should be (which incidentally, is what the old zoning code was)

Developer does their homework and finds a couple parcels in an area zoned for townhomes owned by one homeowner, does the math and thinks he can make money on the development (much easier to assemble if under one owner). Homeowner is approached by said developer, developer calculates his P/E ratio, and makes generous offer, homeowner accepts offer sells land to developer, developer demolishes existing homes and builds new townhomes within the zoning code under their rights as the landowner...that should be end of story. This whole "historical designation" nonsense at the 11th hour just allows joe shmo with $875 from down the street to circumvent the whole zoning and approval process that the city fought hard to implement.

EDIT: Now don't get me wrong, I am all for historic district designations where they are deserving of it, but picking and choosing a house here and there to call "historic" just because it's old and has character is not the way to do that.

RyanD · #**4625** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 8:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I don't lust for density, I lust for housing stock. You might not have noticed, but in any given neighborhood in Denver, there's only 2, 3, maybe 4 houses on the market at any given time. And dozens of people trying to purchase them. Personally, I would rather sell to the developer who's willing to put a roof over 20 folks' heads than make way for yet one more rich white person to own an expensive old house in central Denver. Boulder has plenty of Victorian housing stock for those who want and can afford it (so does San Francisco, for that matter). In Denver, if we don't want to become that type of city - and I do not - we'll have to settle for bland filler buildings that regular people can afford.

Look what I got in my mail slot yesterday. Totally a healthy market here in Denver.

EngiNerd · #**4626** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 8:20 PM**

What the hell is "farm based ethics" LOL!

seventwenty · #**4627** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 8:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

What the hell is "farm based ethics" LOL!

Someone whose real estate biz listing on the Colorado Secretary of State's website doesn't say farm based ethics.

bunt_q · #**4628** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 8:55 PM**

God this city sucks. Farm based ethics... cowtown bull**** to con people into selling a house, because there are none otherwise. We're like an unsophisticated bumpkin version of San Francisco. Before you know it, I'll have to start wearing skinny pants too. Oh wait...

corey · #**4629** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 8:58 PM**

Thanks for posting the house photo and article. The Queen Anne house should absolutely be saved. The white cottage I am ambivalent about. The brick Victorian is owner occupied and well maintained. Jefferson Park and Denver will not be better if this house is demolished. I don't even care if it is entirely surrounded by new buildings. I think it is worth moving otherwise. I am not a strict proponent of the god-given almighty property rights mantra. This guy will do just fine if he sells it to an another individual and not the developer.

corey · #**4630** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 9:00 PM**

I wouldn't sell to that realtor just because of his pretentious company name and slogan. Puke.

DenverPoke · #**4631** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 9:34 PM**

I get stuff like this quite often. My favorite is the fake yellow "handwritten" letter. It's a pretty popular farming technique for RE investors. Dig the name, ha ha.

TakeFive · #**4632** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

For the bolded, isn't the real question, why is this any of our business? I mean, isn't this why we have the form based zoning code in the first place? The lot is zoned for multi-unit, 3 stories...which should be where the city and community at large's input ends as to what's developed there. Are you arguing that the zoning code is not prescriptive enough in what the "looks" should be (which incidentally, is what the old zoning code was)

To be totally honest I have a high regard for property rights which is why I haven't suggested usurping those in any way. That said, we didn't even know what the relevant homes were until CPLIVE was nice enough to show us.

Interesting that the zoning is for only 3 stories. In any case I am only offering my opinion and preference for what would best serve the neighborhood well over time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

What the hell is "farm based ethics" LOL!

Very hilarious. Looks like a would-be flipper or somebody representing a developer.

DenverPoke... what I assumed.

wong21fr · #**4633** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

To be totally honest I have a high regard for property rights which is why I haven't suggested usurping those in any way. That said, we didn't even know what the relevant homes were until CPLIVE was nice enough to show us.

Yes, you did. The owner of these two properties entered into an agreement with a developer to sell the parcels for $1M with the explicit agreement that the owner would not seek historical designation for the "pretty" house. Then Councilmen-elect Shit-bag and a few other shit-bags uses his authority to pursue a historic designation application against the homeowners wishes and violating the city's rules on such designations.

If that's not usurping one's property rights, than what is?

DownhomeDenver · #**4634** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 10:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Yes, you did. The owner of these two properties entered into an agreement with a developer to sell the parcels for $1M with the explicit agreement that the owner would not seek historical designation for the "pretty" house. Then Councilmen-elect Shit-bag and a few other shit-bags uses his authority to pursue a historic designation application against the homeowners wishes and violating the city's rules on such designations.

If that's not usurping one's property rights, than what is?

Oh and a bunch of shitbags voted for that Councilman-elect Shit-bag. I can see the future now with him pulling this shit with other people throughout the district.

Scottk · #**4635** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 10:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CPVLIVE

Full article in the Post -

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_283910...councilman-elects-bid-prevent-demolition

Absolutely ridiculous NIMBYism in that article's comments section, and others on the Denver Post website.

I think city councilman Rafael Espinosza even makes an appearance in the comments

mr1138 · #**4636** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by corey

This guy will do just fine if he sells it to an another individual and not the developer.

See, this is where I think we're being presumptuous. How do we know he will be just fine? How do we know he didn't just recently pull his equity out of the property to pay for some serious medical bills? Or his kids' college? Or other personal debt? I completely agree that he can probably find a buyer looking for a historic home to live in, but he almost certainly won't make the same return as if he sells to the scrape-and-flip developer. And we don't know what kind of personal financial decisions he has been making with the assumption of a specific return on investment.

If this were his wish, and if he cares enough for his historic property to protect it in such a way, then HE should bring about the landmark designation. Or just don't sell to a big developer. Or both, if he's worried he may leave it behind as an asset to be torn down by somebody in the future. Having it forced upon him when he is simply doing what many others in the neighborhood have done, with little to no warning, is unfair. Especially since we really don't know anything about his personal finances or what this investment means to him.

seventwenty · #**4637** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 10:29 PM**

Bunt, if you're mad you can always cheer yourself up by buying me drinks!

corey · #**4638** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 10:33 PM**

I don't think developers getting away with bribing people to not seek historic designation on clearly historic properties is appropriate either. If the developer has the money for the bribes then they have the money to move the house. At least they could offer to sell the house for $1 to someone that will move it. I know what you are now going to say. But sorry, I am broke. Just got divorced.

corey · #**4639** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 10:42 PM**

If he can't get $1,000,000 for those two properties as they are then he needs a better realtor. The Queen Anne is worth at least $600,000 alone. Probably more.

bunt_q · #**4640** Posted **Jun 30, 2015, 10:47 PM**

This fascist crap makes me want to puke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Bunt, if you're mad you can always cheer yourself up by buying me drinks!

Time and place? I'll be working late tonight (and every night, if I'm ever going to be able to afford a home in Denver...which some holier-than-thou forumer will then expect me to give away someday for a dollar if it has a vintage rain gutter on it, so f* it)... could use a drink right now. I'll buy this one. You buy me one later after the historic preservation gestapo ruins me.