DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Cirrus]

The image is from UC-Berkeley, but unforch the original source and documentation is no longer available.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

. Miami didn't have that expectation for me.

I think that this phenomenon in Miami is more related to wealthy foreigners and snowbirds buying condos in 800 foot towers along Miami Beach.


The city itself isn't that urban though.... Tons of 700 foot plus condo towers in Miami that are surrounded by strip malls, parking lots, and single family homes.

Pretty strange really

[navyweaxguy]

See, where as here it is getting denser all the time. Tons of 400ft (440 I know M) towers going up here. Having geographical limitations really lends to higher density.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Essentially, this shows that urban infill is not only keeping pace with sprawl, but actually gaining a little bit of ground.

That is a very generous interpretation of this data. Going from maybe 3% of housing being in dense neighborhoods in the 1990s, up to maybe 3.5% today?

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.businessden.com/2016/02/11/fight-against-sloans-lake-condos-faces-dismissal/

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That is a very generous interpretation of this data. Going from maybe 3% of housing being in dense neighborhoods in the 1990s, up to maybe 3.5% today?

Keeping pace in terms of percentage. Of course, the percentage is small here. But it's not getting worse, and that is an achievement compared to the world we thought we'd be living in when we graduated college.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Keeping pace in terms of percentage. Of course, the percentage is small here. But it's not getting worse, and that is an achievement compared to the world we thought we'd be living in when we graduated college.

Not sure I agree. A world where 96% of new housing - keeping pace - is in neighborhoods not describes as high density is not the world we think we live in, where we are supposedly experiencing a resurgence of urban living. If "keeping pace" is what we consider to be a resurgence, then we really oughta being paying more attention that we do to the now and future dominant land use, sprawl.

[Cirrus]

In order for the entire metro area percentage to rise 0.5%, the percentage of growth in that particular decade has to have been much larger than that. These charts aren't showing new housing, they're showing all housing. Since existing housing is rarely demolished, change is slow.

Furthermore, you can clearly see on the chart how consistent slow pressure adds up over time, be it negative or positive. The important thing is to continue to apply pressure, decade after decade.

Not to suggest we don't need to do more. Clearly we do.

[mhays]

So much depends on the gradients, and geographic areas used.

Maybe it's about census tracts. And maybe the "dense" requirement is 10,000/sm. If a typical bungalow neighborhood is already 8,500, then a moderate amount of denser infill would move the whole tract to the dense category.

Or maybe it's limited to the density of specific developments, at some mysterious density figure. Ths seems unlikely because that's not counted centrally. But if it was true, then a typical apartment project even in suburbia would count. But you wouldn't get the rest of that bungalow tract, just some of the infill.

Let's say it's tracts, because that's easy, and studies like easy. The results are hugely different if the standard is 8,000/sm vs. 12,000/sm for example. Some cities have lots of the first but zero of the second. So good. But what if one city is 20% above 8,000 but 1% above 12,000, while another is 10% above 8,000 but 5% about 12,000? Which is better? What about a city where the vernacular is 4,000 and some infill areas are 20,000, vs. a city where the vernacular is 6,000 but there are minimal infill areas?

PS, if your fingers mean to type "for" but you're one over, you type "die". Did not know that.

[DenverInfill]

After doing a bit more research, it looks like the person who produced that chart was a master's student. Not that master's students can't produce great work--they can as I see every day--but there's no guarantee, and with no methodology, data source references, or other documentation provided with the chart, I don't think we should put much stock in what it says.

[mojiferous]

I can guarantee that the data in this chart comes from the Census -- see question #2 here: https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/1990_housing.html

Which means it tells us little about the actual density of existing areas, and is probably simply sorted by MSA or CSA instead of a set group of defined zip codes (which would account for the sudden drop from 1970-1980 when the baby boomers bought houses and suburbs rapidly expanded, and why the percentage of dense housing fell in almost every city)

So maybe you can compare relative density of metro areas?

And as a side note re: this data and other data about city density -- A weird part of LA is that it is multiple statistical areas that have merged over the years, so LA proper is dense but seamlessly meshed into suburban sprawl. If you live in LA you are not just dealing with traffic and sprawl from the very dense LA statistical area, but also from surrounding areas (like Riverside, which is also represented on that chart and whose general lack of density is more representative of the areas surrounding LA.) Every city on that chart has the same issue, some just include more of their sprawl in their core statistical area. Judging a city's worth or relative urbanity by these statistics is absolutely worthless, IMHO.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Shame that you can't find an attached home the city center that has good schools- guess this is indicative of the urban mindset that you either need to be wealthy with children or not wealth and childless to seriously consider an urban lifestyle. Because why should urban centers have good schools? It's not like the urbanphiles on this forum are reproducing (thus they think it's not important), and if they have they're already in the 'burbs.

That's what Stapleton is for As close as I could get to downtown with good schools and relatively dense neighborhood. Once the kids leave the nest, we're going condo/townhouse somewhere more urban.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.businessden.com/2016/02/12/ne...m_term=0_e8b1506f0c-dc941ca517-147998669

[EngiNerd]

Interesting article about long term urban affordability in the Washington Post, hits on a lot of points that forumers on here have brought up. Today's luxury units are tomorrow's affordable home stock, and that the more stock you have, the better off you will be in the future. All about that supply and demand.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...-when-we-build-more-housing-for-the-rich

I feel Denver is really setting itself up well in this regards, because much of the new housing construction going on is infill on empty lots, parking lots, or small underutilized structures, not knocking down existing homestock. While there is no doubt some replacement of old to new and shiny going on, from what I have seen, it is not nearly as prevalent. In the interim, all we see is this expensive new stock, but it probably won't take long for a lot of it to become affordable once the supply catches up to demand.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

it looks like the person who produced that chart was a master's student.

I'd put at least as much stock in it as a random blog or newspaper article somewhere, but less than a fully peer-reviewed academic paper. The data surely comes from the census and is beyond reproach, but obviously parts of the methodology (such as what qualifies as "dense") could be up for debate.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I'd put at least as much stock in it as a random blog or newspaper article somewhere, but less than a fully peer-reviewed academic paper. The data surely comes from the census and is beyond reproach, but obviously parts of the methodology (such as what qualifies as "dense") could be up for debate.

Exactly. If the source data is from the census, then that's fine. But it's the definitions, boundaries used, and analysis approach that we have no idea about. Separating a data exhibit like this from its data sources and methodology is always undesirable.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2...BElKTwGoSbqOBYu5F%2FO7W7Amf&t=1455318983

[DenvertoLA]

Does anyone have an update on the Alexan Uptown? That has to be almost done right?

[DenverPoke]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Does anyone have an update on the Alexan Uptown? That has to be almost done right?

They are on floor 9 or 10. Still a ways to go before they are ready for tenants.

[transistor]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Does anyone have an update on the Alexan Uptown? That has to be almost done right?

Denver urban review has one in their monthly construction update for February.