DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[RyanD]

Also... GLASS!

Central Downtown: 1401 Lawrence Update #10







And the view that everyone's been asking for...

[EngiNerd]

Fantastic pics! We don't do all glass curtain walls in Denver very often...so it's really nice to see on this one!

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

This is planned for my neighborhood. I have no sympathy for the people complaining that the new residents will have to use the same free parking that they have been enjoying for so long. http://kdvr.com/2016/01/13/new-apartment...for-parking-in-curtis-park-neighborhood/

Seems pretty irresponsible to me particularly considering many homes in that area simply can not have garages. Best solution would be to stick it to the developer and make it parking for residents only a la Baker or cherry creek which residents of the new construction would obviously be excluded from.

I am sure this wont go over well here but I think in areas where there are historic homes with no parking those residents do have more of a right to street parking than residents of newly (ostensibly poorly planned if there is a parking problem) developments.

[The Dirt]

This is literally a change = bad mentality. The developer can't ever win.
No parking = bad because parking is tight.
New parking = bad because traffic/crowding/pollution will go up.
Dense development = bad because that somehow means poor people will move there.

So basically, if developers cater to existing residents, they will not be able to build anything.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

This is literally a change = bad mentality. The developer can't ever win.
No parking = bad because parking is tight.
New parking = bad because traffic/crowding/pollution will go up.
Dense development = bad because that somehow means poor people will move there.

So basically, if developers cater to existing residents, they will not be able to build anything.

But but but... What about all the great transit options we have here? Why would people ever drive when they are living that close to Downtown Denver (or in Union Station for that matter)? Who owns cars in those neighborhoods anyway?

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Fantastic pics! We don't do all glass curtain walls in Denver very often...so it's really nice to see on this one!

Hey thanks! My fiancee got me this really badass point and shoot. I can now do updates on the fly without having to remember to grab all my camera stuff! It's been doing great so far.

I'm really excited to see some glass in this area of downtown!

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

This is literally a change = bad mentality. The developer can't ever win.
No parking = bad because parking is tight.
New parking = bad because traffic/crowding/pollution will go up.
Dense development = bad because that somehow means poor people will move there.

So basically, if developers cater to existing residents, they will not be able to build anything.

I literally dont think you know what literally means.


For a variety of reasons many dwellings that are 100 years old don't have parking and cant have parking. Those residents rely on street parking and I think should have a higher priority to that public good than residents of a development done irresponsibly. Im not saying block the development, Im saying give those parking spots to existing residents as they do elsewhere in the city and see what the developer does.

Get rid of the car I'm all for it. But it isn't going to happen anytime soon in the front range when the most novel public transit investment of the last decade seems to be repackaging existing bus routes as "BRT".

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

I literally dont think you know what literally means.


For a variety of reasons many dwellings that are 100 years old don't have parking and cant have parking. Those residents rely on street parking and I think should have a higher priority to that public good than residents of a development done irresponsibly. Im not saying block the development, Im saying give those parking spots to existing residents as they do elsewhere in the city and see what the developer does.

Get rid of the car I'm all for it. But it isn't going to happen anytime soon in the front range when the most novel public transit investment of the last decade seems to be repackaging existing bus routes as "BRT".

Stupidest post I've read all week. Maybe we should make those people ride horses. You know, since that's what that neighborhood was built for. Then we don't have to add $30k to the cost of every new unit (making those old houses even more valuable - what a windfall!) to be "responsible." Those people have no more right to on-street parking than anybody else. I say we ban car ownership for folks who don't have their own off-street parking - horses, in the name of responsibility!

Originally Posted by The Dirt

So basically, if developers cater to existing residents, they will not be able to build anything.

That's exactly the point. NIMBYs becoming BANANAs. (Build Absolutely Nothing ANytime Anywhere.)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

I literally dont think you know what literally means.

For a variety of reasons many dwellings that are 100 years old don't have parking and cant have parking. Those residents rely on street parking and I think should have a higher priority to that public good than residents of a development done irresponsibly. Im not saying block the development, Im saying give those parking spots to existing residents as they do elsewhere in the city and see what the developer does.

Maybe if people in the area would use their alley access for car storage instead of as junkyards I'd be more sympathetic. But I'm not. There's plenty of off-street parking in the area, it's just not being used for that purpose.

Get rid of the car I'm all for it. But it isn't going to happen anytime soon in the front range when the most novel public transit investment of the last decade seems to be repackaging existing bus routes as "BRT".

If this, which is really enhanced bus service, was done on the majority of RTD's routes with heavy ridership than it would probably be a better transit investment than FasTracks. Run BRT/Enhanced Service on the 0, 15, 16, 3, 20, 83, 40, 31, 6 etc and see what happens to ridership. Give me this and I'd be one f**kin' happy clam.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.businessden.com/2016/01/14/apartment-developer-inks-5-3m-deal-for-rino-plot/

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

If this, which is really enhanced bus service, was done on the majority of RTD's routes with heavy ridership than it would probably be a better transit investment than FasTracks. Run BRT/Enhanced Service on the 0, 15, 16, 3, 20, 83, 40, 31, 6 etc and see what happens to ridership. Give me this and I'd be one f**kin' happy clam.

Much needed first step

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Those residents rely on street parking and I think should have a higher priority to that public good than residents of a development done irresponsibly. Im not saying block the development, Im saying give those parking spots to existing residents as they do elsewhere in the city and see what the developer does.

Wow, and I thought my generation was a bunch of entitled, me-first, whiners. Close-in or adjacent parking isn't a right, it's a commodity. If it's in short supply, you either park farther out or you pay for the privilege of convenience.

EDIT:
Here's a crappy cellphone picture towards Five Points from my building that I took earlier today.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Wow, and I thought my generation was a bunch of entitled, me-first, whiners. Close-in or adjacent parking isn't a right, it's a commodity. If it's in short supply, you either park farther out or you pay for the privilege of convenience.

Amen We are running into that at my apartment complex, people whining about not enough parking in the nearly free parking lots....but garages are offered which guarantees you a spot if you can't stand having to park a 5 minute walk away, but they are not free obviously, so people complain.

[RyanD]

1144 Fifteenth is outta the ground!

Central Downtown: 1144 Fifteenth Update #9

[Robert.hampton]

Glad I could once again spark some emotional responses with my backwards, entitled thinking.

I do consider availability of parking to be a quality of life issue in this city. I believe the vast majority of the (backward looking) population agree with that. I also would like to think we can develop in ways that dont diminish quality of life. But again, I am a backwards yokal with a sense of entitled privilege and not a forward looking urbanist like the majority here.


As for the comments that existing resident dont have any more right than new residents to street parking.....thats true in some parts of the city and not true in others. Where residential parking passes are place existing residents do have enhanced rights. Thats not an opinion either....

[bunt_q]

New residents are normally entitled to resident parking permits once they become residents themselves.. The purpose of those is to keep people who are in the neighborhood temporarily for work, school, or special events, from filling all of the spots on a short term basis. That is not the same thing as what you are saying, which places current residents over people who choose to locate in the neighborhood later.

I completely agree that parking is a quality-of-life issue in the city. Which is why people who buy old houses in established neighborhoods should find a way to provide themselves some alley-loaded off-street parking, and not depend on the rest of us to subsidize it for them. Perhaps they should be required to provide it in the same ratios a new development would have to provide. And if there isn't physical space, apply for a variance. Most houses can accommodate it, though, and are just too cheap or stubborn to do so.

Or they can save their backyards and ride horses. As was intended at the time those houses were new.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

Cirrus get out here!

Cirrus is smarter than the rest of us, he ain't never coming back here.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Or they can save their backyards and ride horses.

New from Uber: Denver Wild West Days!

Want to creepily ride with a stranger on their horse to get you around town? Well now's your chance! Discounted rates if going to the National Western Stock Show Complex!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Also... GLASS!

Central Downtown: 1401 Lawrence Update #10







And the view that everyone's been asking for...

NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!! SO CLEAN AND ELEGANT. GORGEOUS BUILDING.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

This is planned for my neighborhood. I have no sympathy for the people complaining that the new residents will have to use the same free parking that they have been enjoying for so long. http://kdvr.com/2016/01/13/new-apartment...for-parking-in-curtis-park-neighborhood/

Great news. I bet it does very well, and starts a trend.

A key point is that residents tend to self-select with buildings like this...people who live there will often not have cars. They get more home for the money, vs. paying for a space they don't use. Even if only a small percentage of local residents are in the right demographic (generally single, wants to live in that part of town, has the right budget, lacks a car) the building only needs 56 of them.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

BANANAs. (Build Absolutely Nothing ANytime Anywhere.)

Building Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. SMH.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Cirrus is smarter than the rest of us

Don't forget better looking.