DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't disagree. But the solution we haven't really seen yet is bona fide urbanization outside of downtown. This weird notion that downtown is the only place allowed to be high-density urban is a relic of 20th Century thinking, and it doesn't have to be true. We're seeing urbanization in Cherry Creek North, but what Denver needs now is 10 more Cherry Creek Norths, all over the region, preferably at FasTracks stops.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that anyone in Colorado is willing to allow that kind of density outside of downtown or Cherry Creek North. Except maybe Glendale, but there's only one Glendale.

Yeah, I think Lakewood has some great development opportunities along both Colfax and the W line - at least in terms of underutilized areas that could easily become denser developments without turning all of the current neighbors into annoying West Highland NIMBYs. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much of that going on. Not sure why the 5 story stick builds being built downtown wouldn't pencil out at 6th & Union...

Also, does anyone know how the condo defect bill affects conversions? I know we've talked about new apartments being converted to condos eventually, but what about our glut of older office towers? I understand that there is still possibility for owners to sue, but I would imagine the liability is lower when the exterior has been weather-tested for more than 30 years and the structure is sound. I know office vacancy is too low to make this a viable option anytime soon, but I was walking to work this morning and thinking it would be an easy way to bring owners to upper downtown (and maybe quickly fill some new office construction)

[rds70]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't disagree. But the solution we haven't really seen yet is bona fide urbanization outside of downtown. This weird notion that downtown is the only place allowed to be high-density urban is a relic of 20th Century thinking, and it doesn't have to be true. We're seeing urbanization in Cherry Creek North, but what Denver needs now is 10 more Cherry Creek Norths, all over the region, preferably at FasTracks stops.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that anyone in Colorado is willing to allow that kind of density outside of downtown or Cherry Creek North. Except maybe Glendale, but there's only one Glendale.

I would disagree. Lakewood has upzoned all of their station areas, allowing 8-12 story buildings with no density caps. Aurora is doing the same thing. Arvada, to a lesser extent will be adding 700 or so new units in the Olde Town area, and a few hundred more at Kipling. Lone Tree is adding a ton of density along the new extension of the southeast line.

There are at least a dozen locations when densities are being increased.

[mojiferous]

Also, did anyone else see this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comme..._a_300000_house_look_like_where_you_are/
It seems fitting for this conversation.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't disagree. But the solution we haven't really seen yet is bona fide urbanization outside of downtown. This weird notion that downtown is the only place allowed to be high-density urban is a relic of 20th Century thinking, and it doesn't have to be true. We're seeing urbanization in Cherry Creek North, but what Denver needs now is 10 more Cherry Creek Norths, all over the region, preferably at FasTracks stops.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that anyone in Colorado is willing to allow that kind of density outside of downtown or Cherry Creek North. Except maybe Glendale, but there's only one Glendale.

I didn't mean to imply that downtown was the only place that should be urban. But it most certainly IS the only place in Denver comparable to about 20 different Chicago neighborhoods. There are apartment towers in both Lakeview and Edgewater that all by themselves would change the Denver skyline. I was mainly saying I have one option in terms of looking for a place with a similar (and still not even remotely in the same league as Chicago) urban fabric in Denver.

Denver has no business even aspiring to emulate a Chicago. That's not what I was getting at either. It certainly doesn't even have any business being in the exact same price point as a first tier world city it's not remotely in the same league with; let alone being a great deal more expensive.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

I didn't mean to imply that downtown was the only place that should be urban. But it most certainly IS the only place in Denver comparable to about 20 different Chicago neighborhoods. There are apartment towers in both Lakeview and Edgewater that all by themselves would change the Denver skyline. I was mainly saying I have one option in terms of looking for a place with a similar (and still not even remotely in the same league as Chicago) urban fabric in Denver.

Denver has no business even aspiring to emulate a Chicago. That's not what I was getting at either. It certainly doesn't even have any business being in the exact same price point as a first tier world city it's not remotely in the same league with; let alone being a great deal more expensive.

Are you taking into account salaries? I just did a quick check, and in my profession jobs in the Chicago area pay about 20% less. So, it might appear to be cheaper, but if you are making less money, you are no better off.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Denver has no business even aspiring to emulate a Chicago. That's not what I was getting at either. It certainly doesn't even have any business being in the exact same price point as a first tier world city it's not remotely in the same league with; let alone being a great deal more expensive.

Maybe Chicago isn't the first tier city you think it is? Denver has many advantages relative to Chicago. Much better weather, better access to nature, a more compact city that is (for my money) easier to move around in, and a far better regulatory environment all spring to mind.

I suppose Portland, Austin, and all of the other second-tier cities have no business being more expensive either? Chicago is currently experiencing flat to negative population growth for a reason.

It's such a weird thing to do: you've cherry-picked Chicago while ignoring a whole host of cities that Denver continues to be much less expensive to live in. Like New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and even Miami.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

I didn't mean to imply that downtown was the only place that should be urban. But it most certainly IS the only place in Denver comparable to about 20 different Chicago neighborhoods. I was mainly saying I have one option in terms of looking for a place with a similar urban fabric in Denver.

Right. I get that. I'm saying that's what needs to change. A big part of Denver's urban affordability problem is that there should be other urban places taking some of the heat off downtown, but there aren't.

Originally Posted by rds70

Lakewood has upzoned all of their station areas, allowing 8-12 story buildings

That's great. I'm very glad to hear it. That's definitely a very strong step up (literally) from the 3 story Englewood-style TODs of the previous generation. Great news, and I fully expect it to spread once it happens there and people realize the sky hasn't fallen. It's solid, praise-worthy progress and I genuinely look forward to seeing the first example projects out there. Are there any yet?

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by enjo13

Denver has many advantages relative to Chicago.

Originally Posted by rds70

Are you taking into account salaries?

We just had a thread about this exact topic. Let's not rehash it.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't disagree. But the solution we haven't really seen yet is bona fide urbanization outside of downtown. This weird notion that downtown is the only place allowed to be high-density urban is a relic of 20th Century thinking, and it doesn't have to be true. We're seeing urbanization in Cherry Creek North, but what Denver needs now is 10 more Cherry Creek Norths, all over the region, preferably at FasTracks stops.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that anyone in Colorado is willing to allow that kind of density outside of downtown or Cherry Creek North. Except maybe Glendale, but there's only one Glendale.

Westminster town center could be that if it's actually built out as planned, might be the first one that actually has good density.

Belleview station is going to have some decent density, but they still allowed traditional DTC style office developments which was a disappointment.

Bel-Mar could have even more density if it were on a transit stop, real shame they couldn't get transit near that one. It's really the only one outside of CCN and Downtown that could fight it in density that is currently available. Boulder obviously has the density, but it's even more expensive, so it's a terrible comparison.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by rds70

Are you taking into account salaries? I just did a quick check, and in my profession jobs in the Chicago area pay about 20% less. So, it might appear to be cheaper, but if you are making less money, you are no better off.

No I wasn't.. I won't be moving so it wasn't relevant, but it would certainly make a difference to someone changing jobs I understand. I'm not sure it mitigates Denver's problems much though.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by enjo13

Maybe Chicago isn't the first tier city you think it is? Denver has many advantages relative to Chicago. Much better weather, better access to nature, a more compact city that is (for my money) easier to move around in, and a far better regulatory environment all spring to mind.

I suppose Portland, Austin, and all of the other second-tier cities have no business being more expensive either? Chicago is currently experiencing flat to negative population growth for a reason.

It's such a weird thing to do: you've cherry-picked Chicago while ignoring a whole host of cities that Denver continues to be much less expensive to live in. Like New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and even Miami.

Denver does have many advantages relative to Chicago. And if I was trying to spend (way more) of your money I'd take that into consideration. Not the least of which is I love it there and it's home. All other things being close to equal it would come in ahead in my mind every time. (I didn't catch the conversation I was just warned not to rehash -- I hope I didn't just repeat something that lead to hurt feelings/consternation).

And yes I did cherry pick two cities. . one where I was considering getting a second home for my mom and us to share (Denver) and one where I was considering a second home where my partner is going to be going to school (Chicago). I completely realize my comments are anecdotal, but I am hardly alone in my complaints.

I suppose Portland, Austin and all other 2nd tier cities DON'T deserve to be more expensive either by my logic.. and I completely agree with that. They don't. At all.

And I did indeed ignore cities I am not considering moving to. I also didn't consider Boston, Baltimore, Detroit, Toronto, Perth, Machu Pichu, Buenos Aires, Springfield (CO, IL, TX, CA, etc), Fargo, Missoula, Tampa, Havana, Belize City, Quito, Belen, Ankara, Gnome, Beijing, Addis Ababa, Thunder Bay, or Alice Springs... though there is a job there I could apply to if you'd like me to give you the comparison on housing in the middle of nowhere Australia v. Denver.

Let's say I grant that everything I just said in comparison to any city is moot or wrong (which it may be and certainly IS from other people's point of view). Is Denver all by itself comparing itself to its own past too expensive to own in now? (and also to rent almost)? I think I'm actually one of the less intelligent ones here that it took me actually looking for a place in two cities to see it. I'm embarrassed I needed that to be frank. I shouldn't have... and neither should the policymakers in CO/Denver who have vastly more experience and data to help them make decisions than I did.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

We just had a thread about this exact topic. Let's not rehash it.

Blah apparently my memory is awful if I can't hold conversations from 6 weeks ago in my head. I've pretty much added nothing to what was said on that page.. apologies.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.businessden.com/2015/08/17/old-ymca-sold-with-new-homes-in-the-works/

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Westminster town center could be that if it's actually built out as planned, might be the first one that actually has good density.

Belleview station is going to have some decent density, but they still allowed traditional DTC style office developments which was a disappointment.

Bel-Mar could have even more density if it were on a transit stop, real shame they couldn't get transit near that one. It's really the only one outside of CCN and Downtown that could fight it in density that is currently available. Boulder obviously has the density, but it's even more expensive, so it's a terrible comparison.

I agree with everything said here. It seems to me that the problem isn't so much that cities are unwilling to plan/zone for this density, but rather that they have so far been unable to find developers actually willing to build to these densities out in the suburbs. The developers seem to either A) want to reduce the DU/A by taking shortcuts like using surface parking rather than structured (also seen here in Lakewood), or B) try to change the site plan to include surface parking and big box stores at the edge.

I'm not sure what it will take to change this... part of me thinks economics will have to play a role. If developers decide its actually worth it to maximize the development potential rather than leaving vacant land on the table (having some comps would probably help), then I bet that they will. Right now, for whatever reason, they seem to think that it still makes sense to leave land on the table in the 'burbs. Either way, I think the cities themselves are itching for all the development they can get and would gladly approve higher densities near transit stops if the developers are willing to build it. If you look at some of the "vision" plans promoted by the cities themselves for these station areas, it's clear that there is a lot more ambition out there than the developers are capitalizing on.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Westminster town center could be that if it's actually built out as planned, might be the first one that actually has good density.

Belleview station is going to have some decent density, but they still allowed traditional DTC style office developments which was a disappointment.

Bel-Mar could have even more density if it were on a transit stop, real shame they couldn't get transit near that one. It's really the only one outside of CCN and Downtown that could fight it in density that is currently available. Boulder obviously has the density, but it's even more expensive, so it's a terrible comparison.

Colorado Center (I25 & Colorado) has good potential if the area south of the station and north of Evans were redeveloped. Same goes for I25 & Broadway with whatever goes on the Gates land and extending up to Alameda where the big box stores are currently located.

Stapleton is another contender. No one has seen the future plans for the Town Center around the new station but it certainly could be just as dense as what Westminster has planned.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by BG918

Colorado Center (I25 & Colorado) has good potential if the area south of the station and north of Evans were redeveloped. Same goes for I25 & Broadway with whatever goes on the Gates land and extending up to Alameda where the big box stores are currently located.

Read an interesting article on Gates/Athmar Park and Gates is still a work-in-progress but making progress.

The whole swath between Evans and Hampden between I-25 and Colorado Blvd is prime for redevelopment eventually, especially closer to I-25 (initially).

[The Dirt]

I'm going to be pretty cautious about this panning out to it's full potential but, according to the last (Stapleton) Central Park TOD plan (http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/193/documents/central_park_station/Central%20Park_Final_120924.pdf), they're allowing for development up to 16 stories. It's probably just a coincidence but a few years ago, I went to a neighborhood meeting hosted by RTD. Before we left, they had us write wish-list comments on a large sheet of paper and that's exactly what I wrote.

Looking north from 35th Ave:

http://frontporchstapleton.com/article/transit-oriented-development-stapleton-concept-stage/

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/r...mA+ElKTwGoSbqOBYu5F/O7W7Amf&t=1439846322

[Cirrus]

OK but a cluster of 12 or 16 story buildings is one thing, and a cluster of 4 story buildings with 2 or 3 taller ones at the center is different. We need real clusters of legitimate density, not tokens.

That said, if what mr1138 said is true, the problem isn't just zoning.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/local/ci_...ams-county-to-put-road-on-national-stage