DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by enjo13

Ya.. it does seem a bit..silly. Tearing down perfectly fine houses for this. When there are some nasty parking lots really close to this. This would look amazing at 11th/Grant.

I get that's not really how land acquisition works, but it still sucks

How do we know those houses are "perfectly fine"? Maybe they have a lot of structural or mold issues, or are in disrepair and not worth saving?

All of those "Homes" are actually commercial duplexes built in the 40's and 50's, just filler homes. This 7th and Grant building will be an improvement.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

How do we know those houses are "perfectly fine"? Maybe they have a lot of structural or mold issues, or are in disrepair and not worth saving?

All of those "Homes" are actually commercial duplexes built in the 40's and 50's, just filler homes. This 7th and Grant building will be an improvement.

Maybe an improvement..but not NEARLY the improvement building something on a parking lot would be. That's all.

[TakeFive]

Sam Hill... I can see where losing this "institutional facility" would be bittersweet.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So let me get this straight, in a state that's already basically at full employment, we are going to use tax dollars to pay people to move here, which in turn will further drive up housing prices and clog our roads. Taxes up, tolls up, disposable income down. There is a positive benefit for me buried in corporate incentives someplace, right? Instead, we might consider paying a few companies to leave...

When you find some extra time you should actually read the article. Left me scratching me head.


Interesting article in yesterday's DBJ about the economy going forward. In short everything is "not too hot and not too cold" but on the whole in an upwards trajectory. Notable is that it's a survey of "middle market firms."

Denver would seem to personify this as other than for oil & gas everything generally seems to be healthy and expanding at the margin. It continues to be a perfect climate for developers to keep building even though they may catch up with and even exceed demand temporarily. There's a time to build and a time to rest and Denver is still at a time and place to build. Rest will have to wait.

enjo13... I caught your drift and would agree.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

When you find some extra time you should actually read the article. Left me scratching me head.

What part exactly do you think I didn't read? The part about where we're giving incentives to one firm? Or the part about where we're giving incentives to a different firm?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by enjo13

Maybe an improvement..but not NEARLY the improvement building something on a parking lot would be. That's all.

That would be an interesting approach to zoning - downzone every single lot in the city to its existing land use, except for empty parking lots.... and then once all of those are built on, we allow upzoning of existing development on a case by case basis. My land use law is a little rusty, but my instincts tell me that wouldn't work.

[Midwest out West]

Maybe a bit off the current topic, but well in line with the general thoughts in this thread is an article put out by the Guardian today:

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/nov/16/what-should-future-cities-be-like-lse-urban-age

Some interesting questions in the study relevant to Denver, such as "How can cities accommodate more people without destroying the very qualities that make them attractive to people in the first place? How can they offer more social justice and opportunity?"

[Denver]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That would be an interesting approach to zoning - downzone every single lot in the city to its existing land use, except for empty parking lots.... and then once all of those are built on, we allow upzoning of existing development on a case by case basis. My land use law is a little rusty, but my instincts tell me that wouldn't work.

I think a downzone would have to be in accordance with the comp. plan and area plan. You could definitely make the argument that this is a) spot zoning and b) a regulatory taking (depending on how much the zoning change diminishes the value of the property). In short, even if this was plausible, it would be riddled with lawsuits and would be a waste of money for the city in the form of legal fees and costs associated with changing the comprehensive plan. IMO at least.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Denver

I think a downzone would have to be in accordance with the comp. plan and area plan. You could definitely make the argument that this is a) spot zoning and b) a regulatory taking (depending on how much the zoning change diminishes the value of the property). In short, even if this was plausible, it would be riddled with lawsuits and would be a waste of money for the city in the form of legal fees and costs associated with changing the comprehensive plan. IMO at least.

It was sort of rhetorical and/or a joke. That said, conformity with a comp plan (or area plan) is not generally a legal requirement for zoning in Colorado.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It was sort of rhetorical and/or a joke. That said, conformity with a comp plan (or area plan) is not generally a legal requirement for zoning in Colorado.

You have got to be careful with what you say though....I'm sure there are plenty of people who actually love that idea.

[Tboo]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Agreed, the early planning process, aside from zoning changes (which there will have to be on that property) should stay out of the public process. It would unnecessarily complicate the planning.

You're right, getting the opinions of the families that lived in the Highlands (pre-LoHi) would have complicated the planning process for tearing down homes and businesses for condos and townhomes that are now selling for $600,000. However it might have helped those people save their homes and businesses instead of displacing them and forcing out families that have lived in the city for generations instead of pulling out the rug from underneath them and building expensive homes for rich white singles.

It's this kind of planning that has led to Denver developing a singular identity and alienating people who have lived there a long time but don't happen to make enough money to meet the new monetary requirements for residency in their own city.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Tboo

It's this kind of planning that has led to Denver developing a singular identity and alienating people who have lived there a long time but don't happen to make enough money to meet the new monetary requirements for residency in their own city.

Sorry but this is absolutely incorrect. It's completely and utterly wrong. Displacement in Denver is caused by an inadequately low housing supply to meet the extremely high housing demand. If you stopped new development, that situation would get worse, since you would be restricting the supply even more.

Do you think rich people would just go away if we stopped building new development? No. They'd live in the next best option available, and price out someone else. This is why only rich people can afford to buy houses in Boulder.

The only way to beat displacement is to build enough new housing to satisfy demand. Giving control of development to anti-development NIMBYs would directly contradict that most effective anti-displacement strategy that exists, and thus cause massively more displacement.

[DenvertoLA]

With the economy the way it is right now, I kinda expect tabor 2 to make another go at development.

Does anyone have any insight on that project?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Midwest out West

Maybe a bit off the current topic, but well in line with the general thoughts in this thread is an article put out by the Guardian today:

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/nov/16/what-should-future-cities-be-like-lse-urban-age

Some interesting questions in the study relevant to Denver, such as "How can cities accommodate more people without destroying the very qualities that make them attractive to people in the first place? How can they offer more social justice and opportunity?"

Interesting article.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Displacement in Denver is caused by an inadequately low housing supply to meet the extremely high housing demand. If you stopped new development, that situation would get worse, since you would be restricting the supply even more.

Highlands isn't the only neighborhood where's there's opportunity to satisfy this current demand though. I could name a few if you'd like.

East of Federal there is certainly plenty of opportunity for redevelopment and indeed closer to the highway there's been a lot of multi-family projects as well as townhome developments.

West of Federal it's a bit of a different story. I guess if you've actually met and known many of the people who have lived there for 20/30 years makes it more difficult to view them as just round pegs in square holes. Now the redevelopment of the old St. Anthony's site is a great place for condos and townhomes.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Sorry but this is absolutely incorrect. It's completely and utterly wrong. Displacement in Denver is caused by an inadequately low housing supply to meet the extremely high housing demand. If you stopped new development, that situation would get worse, since you would be restricting the supply even more.

Do you think rich people would just go away if we stopped building new development? No. They'd live in the next best option available, and price out someone else. This is why only rich people can afford to buy houses in Boulder.

The only way to beat displacement is to build enough new housing to satisfy demand. Giving control of development to anti-development NIMBYs would directly contradict that most effective anti-displacement strategy that exists, and thus cause massively more displacement.

You're right, of course. But I think there might be something worth exploring in being so anti-growth and anti-development that you (i) make it harder for would-be transplants to make that first leap, and (ii) convince companies, who absolutely look at such things, not to expand or move here because it'll be hard on their employees. We're fortunate that today's situation is not exactly like Boulder 30 years ago in the sense that people do not want to move farther out, so it's hard for growth to just go somewhere else. I'd venture many people would rather not live here at all than live in the E-470 corridor. At least, I think it's something worth exploring. If we can't accommodate demand, an all out war against demand by locals could bear fruit.

On a more human level, here are some things we can all do to help deal with the transplant menace:
(I) do not hire - or encourage your employer not to hire - recent transplants
(II) display open disgust toward unwelcome recent transplants. Examples include road rage against out of state license plates, and confronting individuals flashing out of state IDs at bars - whether simple taunting, or open hostility, either can be effective.
(III) use "where did you go to high school" as a litmus test in elections; do not vote for carpetbaggers
(IV) openly question whether refugees from places such as Illinois, Texas, Michigan and Ohio represent a terrorist threat. Demand stricter checks from your elected officials and deny these newcomers all forms of public assistance. They should also not be able to purchase legal marijuana, which should be reserved for natives who do not pose a threat.
(V) encourage open carry of firearms; if Portland thinks we're batshit crazy, the coasts will stay home.

[The Dirt]

Lol

[Tboo]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Sorry but this is absolutely incorrect. It's completely and utterly wrong. Displacement in Denver is caused by an inadequately low housing supply to meet the extremely high housing demand. If you stopped new development, that situation would get worse, since you would be restricting the supply even more.

Do you think rich people would just go away if we stopped building new development? No. They'd live in the next best option available, and price out someone else. This is why only rich people can afford to buy houses in Boulder.

The only way to beat displacement is to build enough new housing to satisfy demand. Giving control of development to anti-development NIMBYs would directly contradict that most effective anti-displacement strategy that exists, and thus cause massively more displacement.

My thought isn't completely and utterly wrong. This has been people's reality and it would be ignorant to suggest that it's not a reality. My family lived in the Highlands for multiple generations. We were forced out of the neighborhood because new condo development has made everything more expensive from groceries to property taxes. People living on public school teacher's salaries cannot afford to live in the neighborhood where they teach. Development in much of the Highlands has been about knocking down homes, which is precisely what displacement is. Those people were not then given an equally sized home as part of a condo development to accommodate for density needs, they were forced out of their neighborhood. My sentiments aren't anti-wealth, and certainly not anti-development (otherwise I wouldn't be a follower of this forum), but development needs to have some cultural competence. Yes Denver needs more housing, yes Denver needs denser housing in areas, but it also needs affordable housing. Denver is littered with infill opportunities, and those can help alleviate the lack of housing, but not if they are unaffordable. When the cheapest development in the St. Anthony's site is 900 square feet at $300,000, that's going to drastically alter that neighborhood. While I'm all for redeveloping that site and think condos and townhomes are a great idea in that area, it's worth recognizing and considering how that redevelopment affects the greater area. How does it align with the values and character of the people who have been living their for generations rather than just meeting the values and character of a singular group of people.

I love Denver, and I love the growth and the development. But I also don't want to be forced out of my own city because nobody considers the people over the $$$. Top-down design and development is rarely about the people, it's rarely about preserving what matters, it's all about the money. So yes, I think the people should be involved in planning.

[bunt_q]

Where you're wrong is the part where you say "new condo development has made everything more expensive." I know it may seem that way - just like it's hard to believe in global warming during the winter - but it is just factually incorrect. We don't even have to look that far for an example of a different fact pattern, look at Boulder. They did not allow the condo development, and everything still got more expensive. The same would've been true for the Highlands, there are just too many people who want to live there for prices to stay low, no matter what the development community does. Even if they didn't build a single new unit, those houses would be mega-overpriced now. You can't stop people wanting to move in with a raygun. It's not legal, and it's not feasible, Boulder has been trying for 30 years, and they just got more expensive. The only alternative is to try and build your way out of it. The problem in the Highlands is that we've also limited building, so it keeps prices high, and the new development is all expensive development. Which gives the indication that the new development is causing the price increases. But that is not factually accurate, it's not how development economics works.

If you had a time machine and wanted to stop what has happened, you should have stopped the infrastructure investment. The three pedestrian bridges, and the entire Riverfront Park/Commons Park/Union Station developments they connect you to, are really what killed you.

[EngiNerd]

We were forced out of the neighborhood because new condo development has made everything more expensive from groceries to property taxes.

This is what Cirrus was calling incorrect, its not the new condo development making everything more expensive, it's the desirability of the neighborhood that has made it so, and the condo development is just a result of this desirability, just like people being "forced out" is also a result. Pretty much all of the core neighborhoods are in a renaissance right now because it's of the trend for people to move back into the city, and it just so happens that the "rich white" folk are leading that renaissance. Highlands just happens to be one of those areas that was an early part of this trend, while other areas, such as RINO, Arap. Square, and Five Points, are looking like they will be the next stage. The condo development followed the already occurring gentrification and wealth increases, it wasn't a cause of the gentrification.

The thinking that the highlands is actually more crowded now is also wrong from the stats I have seen, the numbers actually show that there are less people in the highlands now because of the gentrification, 2 people households replacing 4-5 people households, even though there is the denser condo/townhome development going on.

I see you blaming for the developers for the higher cost of living as if the developers were setting some artificially high number, when really the developers are just following the demand (and wealth increases) that were already occurring in the neighborhood anyway.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

I see you blaming for the developers for the higher cost of living as if the developers were setting some artificially high number, when really the developers are just following the demand (and wealth increases) that were already occurring in the neighborhood anyway.

Well stated. It's not like if some developer started building 600k condos in Montbello suddenly there will be huge demand for high end condos in Montbello. Instead, you will have some empty 600k condos.

[EngiNerd]

On another note, for the last few days when I visit http://insiderealestatenews.com/, it throws me to a May 2015 post and I can't access the new postings. Is this happening to anyone else?