DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

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.

And some squatters who'd be living large!

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

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.

I agree its reasonable for local neighborhoods to have say in City development policies (zoning, building codes, design review), but I see no alternative to the free market to determine the appropriate "cost" to live in a particular area. Anything else just unfairly distorts the market for the benefit of a few while even extracting a higher cost for the many. For example, you could go the NYC route and say that 35 percent of units will be rent controlled. That will just mean that the remaining 65 percent of the units cost even more than do today and will incentivize an entire "black market" of persons who get the preferential treatment into leveraging their position to sublease or share with unprivileged person to extract out that suppressed extra market value for their own benefit.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by 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?

Nope, think you need to clear your browser and cookies.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Nope, think you need to clear your browser and cookies.

Hmm, it's weird because it doesn't matter which browser I use, they all kick me back to a May 21 post. Sounds like it's probably something else on my end.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by 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?

Don't listen to bunt; he's always trying to get into your cookies.
Instead Google for a fresh new link which now is called Denver Real Estate Watch (as opposed to Inside Real Estate News).

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Don't listen to bunt; he's always trying to get into your cookies.
Instead Google for a fresh new link which now is called Denver Real Estate Watch (as opposed to Inside Real Estate News).

Oh my bad, I updated my bookmark I guess.

[DenverInfill]

nm

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Don't listen to bunt; he's always trying to get into your cookies.
Instead Google for a fresh new link which now is called Denver Real Estate Watch (as opposed to Inside Real Estate News).

There we go, thanks!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I agree its reasonable for local neighborhoods to have say in City development policies (zoning, building codes, design review), but I see no alternative to the free market to determine the appropriate "cost" to live in a particular area. Anything else just unfairly distorts the market for the benefit of a few while even extracting a higher cost for the many. For example, you could go the NYC route and say that 35 percent of units will be rent controlled. That will just mean that the remaining 65 percent of the units cost even more than do today and will incentivize an entire "black market" of persons who get the preferential treatment into leveraging their position to sublease or share with unprivileged person to extract out that suppressed extra market value for their own benefit.

I wonder if it would be worth looking at how affordable housing is funded in Denver. The establishment of the revolving affordable housing loan fund was a start, but getting a source of continuous cash flow into the fund is needed to make any kind of meaningful impact on housing affordability in Denver. Maybe a small mill levy increase modeled after Seattle's could be the proper mechanism. Get rid of the affordable housing development fee and put in a citywide mill levy that could generate $5M to $10M per year that would then be used to finance affordable housing. I would prefer that it focus on multi-family to generate a greater number of units at a higher density but am not sure on whether it should be exclusively for rentals or should include for-sale as well.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bcp

You do know who is selling all of the old homes and land in Lohi and Jeff park...don't you?

Evil developers?

[corey]

Do affordable for sale condo units go for the market rate when re-sold? If you buy a unit for $250,000 because the initial price is artificially low can you turn around and sell for $400,000 and make a huge profit at the public's expense? Are these units affordable only to the lucky initial buyer? Doesn't seem like a long term solution.

[TakeFive]

Today's the Day
All travelers and locals welcome. We've got the best pillows in the country.

Source: Denver International Airport via BloombergBusiness

Why Some Airports Are Getting Posh Hotels - The airport hotels of the future will boast spas, chic bars, and upscale cuisine.
November 12, 2015 by Justin Bachman Bloomberg Business

Scan the lodging options around most big U.S. airports, and you’ll find an abundance of humble accommodations—along with a few best described as frightening. The tony hotels are typically found in city centers, where business travelers, tourists, and conventioneers tend to congregate.

The post-recession U.S. hotel boom is changing that, with upscale airport hotels now planned in Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York City, Atlanta, and a 500-room Westin opening Nov. 19 at Denver International Airport.

[Octavian]

When are we getting the DenverInFill photo tour?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by corey

Do affordable for sale condo units go for the market rate when re-sold? If you buy a unit for $250,000 because the initial price is artificially low can you turn around and sell for $400,000 and make a huge profit at the public's expense? Are these units affordable only to the lucky initial buyer? Doesn't seem like a long term solution.

They generally have contract clauses that they can only appreciate by x percent per year for x number of years. The contract also stipulates what kind of buyer the current owner can sell to in that they have to meet certain income qualifications. So they aren't exposed to market conditions as long as the contract remains in place.

It's certainly not a market solution and the difficulty in reselling the units might make the argument that affordable housing should be geared towards rentals with vouchers.

[Tboo]

Originally Posted by bcp

You do know who is selling all of the old homes and land in Lohi and Jeff park...don't you?

I think it's necessary to question why they are selling those homes. It's not always a choice, sometimes it's a necessity.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/7...hoods-wealth-not-gentrification-20151111

I think this article does a good job explaining why communities are essential to planning rather than just a group of planning students or professional planners. I think it also illustrates some points that are in line with why there is some growing animosity among long-time Denver residents who don't feel included in the future of their neighborhoods or city. When rental costs are increasing by 12% a year we have a crisis that is unsustainable without a middle ground on affordable housing. I understand that more development is the answer, that supply and demand are real things, but my original point was that the planning process should include the people and help to meet the needs of the people rather than pushing them out. I just think it's unconscionable to drop a plan on a neighborhood without consulting those people.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

It's certainly not a market solution and the difficulty in reselling the units might make the argument that affordable housing should be geared towards rentals with vouchers.

This only works if you require landlords to accept them.

They're generally deed restricted - like a covenant - hard to break, so more permanently affordable than just a contract would indicate.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Tboo

I understand that more development is the answer, that supply and demand are real things, but my original point was that the planning process should include the people and help to meet the needs of the people rather than pushing them out. I just think it's unconscionable to drop a plan on a neighborhood without consulting those people.

Yeah, but people are stupid. They do not understand or accept that more development is a solution, rather than the problem. So that involvement you seek turns into a forum for anti-growth NIMBY sentiment. Also, people are selfish. So for every one person you claim is worried about the loss of their neighborhood, they have two neighbors who are thrilled to death to be able to sell out at a ginormous profit. Which also creates perverse incentives - by opposing growth, they can increase their own property values until they sell (for 30 seconds of their lives, at the closing table, they are pro-development). So the result is two camps of people - one stupid and naive, the other selfish, but BOTH opposed to development.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This only works if you require landlords to accept them.

They're generally deed restricted - like a covenant - hard to break, so more permanently affordable than just a contract would indicate.

If you're financing the development, then you can dictate that they should remain affordable. IDK, it just seems that deed-restricted for-sale housing has been less successful at addressing the affordable housing issue than has subsidized rentals. That might be because there hasn't been a serious push for affordable for-sale in Denver, but that's my perception.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

If you're financing the development, then you can dictate that they should remain affordable. IDK, it just seems that deed-restricted for-sale housing has been less successful at addressing the affordable housing issue than has subsidized rentals. That might be because there hasn't been a serious push for affordable for-sale in Denver, but that's my perception.

Income restricted housing also has the nice effect of fucking over the folks in the middle. So now you have San Francisco, you get to feel good because x% of poor people get to live in the city but you've artificially restricted supply to ensure that those in the middle have to move to Oakland (or farther at this point).

There is always only one singular answer to this problem: build, build, and build some more. Which is why I continue to support value-engineered buildings. It means we get more of them.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

[SIZE="4"]
Why Some Airports Are Getting Posh Hotels - The airport hotels of the future will boast spas, chic bars, and upscale cuisine.
November 12, 2015 by Justin Bachman Bloomberg Business

It appears we're doing better than Minneapolis in the Airport Hotel Building department.