DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Cirrus]

I think you guys should read Dead End: Suburban Sprawl and the Rebirth of American Urbanism. It's an interesting and in-depth look at why NIMBYs NIMBY, and it changed how I think about them.

Oh, they're still horrible people. But I don't think it's all about stopping traffic or protecting views anymore. It explains why an ugly weedy lot is, to them, better than a benign use.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I think this article explains best why empowering communities in dangerous, and sometimes neighborhood groups need to be stopped. Perhaps with a billy club.

http://www.northdenvertribune.com/2015/1...-hostility-towards-emmaus-redevelopment/

I think we need to get a group of us and stop by to say hi to the reverend. If he's having to judge all of Denver by the actions of a few asshats (still a vocal minority, in my opinion) in West Highland than I feel bad for the guy.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

If he's having to judge all of Denver by the actions of a few asshats (still a vocal minority, in my opinion)

Do you really think they're just a vocal minority? I am not so sure.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I think you guys should read Dead End: Suburban Sprawl and the Rebirth of American Urbanism. It's an interesting and in-depth look at why NIMBYs NIMBY, and it changed how I think about them.

Oh, they're still horrible people. But I don't think it's all about stopping traffic or protecting views anymore. It explains why an ugly weedy lot is, to them, better than a benign use.

Amazon, add to cart, checkout.

[TakeFive]

Done Deal

7NewsDenver news Team provides tonight's statement by Mayor Hancock:

“Denver said loud and clear tonight that we’re going to do whatever we can to address the accessible and affordable housing challenges we are facing citywide. I want to personally thank City Council for approving this local ordinance. This is a measured and balanced approach to addressing a shortage of condominiums, taking great care to spur the creation of more for-sale units while protecting homeowner rights in situations of defective construction.

With this step, Denver joins with many of our metro area neighbors in seeking to find solutions to a housing market that is lagging and leaving our residents with difficult choices. While our balanced approach will seek to alleviate such pressure here at home, it is still imperative for the state Legislature to act.

Colorado is demanding action and leadership, and we need it now. Denver and cities across the metro area are stepping up, and it’s time for the Legislature to do the same.”

[bunt_q]

Praise the good baby Jesus. A condo building on every corner in West Highland, I say!

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Amazon, add to cart, checkout.

I just did the same.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29157769/aurora-passes-plan-mixed-development-around-light-rail

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Done Deal

7NewsDenver news Team provides tonight's statement by Mayor Hancock:

Finally!! Their tag line right before Hancock's quote is a little disingenuous though "Opponents say this will strip homeowners of protections but supporters, including Mayor Michael Hancock, believe it'll mean more growth. Hancock said in a statement:"

This won't result in more growth, the growth is coming whether they pass this or not. This will simply result in more affordability (at least that's the logic) and options to live closer to the city center for those not making 100k+ a year.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Do you really think they're just a vocal minority? I am not so sure.

A minority in the sense that the majority couldn't be bothered about urban development issues. So, while 70% of the population doesn't care, 20% are rabid tinhat NIMBYs, while the remaining 10% are urbanists.

Bunt/Ken - let me know if it's worth the read.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Finally!! Their tag line right before Hancock's quote is a little disingenuous though "Opponents say this will strip homeowners of protections but supporters, including Mayor Michael Hancock, believe it'll mean more growth. Hancock said in a statement:"

This won't result in more growth, the growth is coming whether they pass this or not. This will simply result in more affordability (at least that's the logic) and options to live closer to the city center for those not making 100k+ a year.

It will be interesting to see how the pre-sales at Nava Sloan's Lake and Coloradan do.

Without even knowing prices, I expect Coloradan to do very well simply because its arguably the best location in the city. You will never have a building like that again. Sloan's Lake, not as sure about that especially if they are shooting for $400/ft and up.

[mhays]

The majority of people will vote yes for transit (depending on the measure), and will vote yes for limits to sprawl if given the opportunity (and depending on the measure). From there, if you can get the discussion away from "should we stop growing" and closer to "how should we deal with our inevitable growth without sprawling and ideally near transit" you have a recipe for smoother infill.

Then you need zoning that allows signficant density in key areas, and land use permit decisions that are based upon zoning vs. one with arbitrary veto powers.

My region isn't perfect either, but we've done these things, and don't run into cases like the Highlands example assuming the plan is within the zoning, or close to it with non-controversial variances.

[corey]

I thought that medical building in West Highland was already approved. Did the Nimby's appeal of something? I know people who own homes near 32nd and Lowell and their major complaint is the lack of street parking for guests etc. since the shopping district there is definitely a destination. the strip mall with the Garbanzos and Coral restaurant should be redeveloped as a multi-use project with ground floor retail, upper floor residential, and a large parking garage. However, this would be the mother of Nimby outrage I am sure. the building was completely renovated recently and has new tenants that spent a lot on finishing out their spaces, so it may be quite a while before the site is redeveloped.

[The Dirt]

Anyone know why the Skyhouse parking structure would need a new blue (tower?) crane base? Seems a bit heavy duty, no?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

The majority of people will vote yes for transit (depending on the measure), and will vote yes for limits to sprawl if given the opportunity (and depending on the measure). From there, if you can get the discussion away from "should we stop growing" and closer to "how should we deal with our inevitable growth without sprawling and ideally near transit" you have a recipe for smoother infill.

The one growth control measure we've had on the ballot (a real UGB), gosh, 10 years ago now, go absolutely trounced at the ballot.

Originally Posted by mhays

My region isn't perfect either, but we've done these things, and don't run into cases like the Highlands example assuming the plan is within the zoning, or close to it with non-controversial variances.

Interestingly, most of these cases we talk about are completely uses by right within the zoning. A few rezonings, but that would be the same standard once approved by the City Council (and we do not have any conformity requirement here). It's the zoning itself that is being litigated - they're suing the City. Which is why none of them are winning, of course.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Anyone know why the Skyhouse parking structure would need a new blue (tower?) crane base? Seems a bit heavy duty, no?

Seems a bit aggressive, but rumor had it a luffer(!) was going in to build the structure. Maybe it needs to be a beefy structure because of the dirt / ground on that lot? I have no idea, just speculating?

Can they start the parking structure then go to the city and be like hey we want to build another tower here, mid-project?

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by mhays

The majority of people will vote yes for transit (depending on the measure), and will vote yes for limits to sprawl if given the opportunity (and depending on the measure). From there, if you can get the discussion away from "should we stop growing" and closer to "how should we deal with our inevitable growth without sprawling and ideally near transit" you have a recipe for smoother infill.

Then you need zoning that allows signficant density in key areas, and land use permit decisions that are based upon zoning vs. one with arbitrary veto powers.

My region isn't perfect either, but we've done these things, and don't run into cases like the Highlands example assuming the plan is within the zoning, or close to it with non-controversial variances.

I think a lot of the current issues come down to the designations of "areas of change" versus "areas of stability" when the new Blueprint Denver and zoning code was released. People took to heart that "area of stability" meant zero changes, when in fact it meant that the new zoning would still remain similar to the previous zoning with no significant land use changes.

These areas such as Highlands were already zoned for the townhome style construction that is ongoing, it was just 10 years ago this neighborhood, and other inner city areas like it, weren't desirable enough to warrant heavy investment and development like they are today. People moved in with the mindset that the area would never change, and now that it is, they seem to take it as a personal affront and try to bully to keep their neighborhood the same. What they also don't understand is that stagnation is also bad for their property values.

I would bet that a majority of those that have such big issues with the development going on have not lived there for more than 10 years, and moved from the suburbs, and had some preconceived notion of keeping their neighborhood suburban-esque with nearby urban amenities, even though they live within a mile of downtown.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Seems a bit aggressive, but rumor had it a luffer(!) was going in to build the structure. Maybe it needs to be a beefy structure because of the dirt / ground on that lot? I have no idea, just speculating?

Can they start the parking structure then go to the city and be like hey we want to build another tower here, mid-project?

Yes, they very well could do that, no reason they couldn't. It would likely delay things a bit for them though, but it would be easier and cheaper to build a second tower now than in the future, if indeed that were in the cards.

You cannot use a tower crane for a precast concrete parking garage construction, the gigantic concrete double tee framing is much too heavy for those to handle. So if indeed there is a tower crane, it would have to be for a building with steel framing...unless the garage is going to be steel framed (happens, but pretty rare in Colorado)?

[lumos]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Yes, they very well could do that, no reason they couldn't.

You cannot use a tower crane for concrete parking garage construction, the gigantic concrete framing is much too heavy for those to handle. So if indeed there is a tower crane, it would have to be for a building with steel framing...unless the garage is going to be steel framed (happens, but pretty rare in Colorado)?

I saw that as I wandered past today. As they are on the final floor of the main structure perhaps they will shortly take down the tower crane and put a luffing jib crane in the new tower for the car park pre-fab build. They did a great job getting the structure sealed before the winter really sets in.

[EngiNerd]

Well look at that, definitely a tower crane base. All I can guess is that if they are building a precast concrete garage, they must be using one hell of a tower crane (which I have never seen or heard of before), because each one of those precast double tees weighs about 15 tons (30,000 pounds) and are usually much too large for a tower crane to handle. Could be that its a cast-in-place concrete garage too, but you wouldn't need a tower crane for that unless the city of Denver is not allowing them to shut down a lane for the crane access for the next several months to lift formwork and other miscellaneous items.


http://oxblue.com/open/skyhouseapartments

[lumos]

I had been trying to find out the situation about this bridge online but could not find anything so I went out to investigate. To my delight I found construction started on both sides of the tracks. I could not tell the design of ramps that they settled on though.