DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There is precedent in other cities. And something a few of us on here have talked about getting started in earnest for a long time now.

Ok, well add me in as another interested party. How do we progress from talking to doing? I'm hoping to make it to this week's Denver Urbanism meetup. Maybe that would be a good time to start talking about action?

The best example of this sort of thing that I know of is SFBARF in the Bay Area.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Higher prices for residential tends to do that, along with a strong corporate presence. Denver has been seriously lagging behind in the development of our local corporate presence- though here's hoping that some of those startups that are now expanding to the 500-plus employee level continue to expand and have visions of grand HQ's downtown.

Seattle area has been blessed with some awesome homegrown corps. Per Wikipedai:

This is a list of large or well-known interstate or international companies headquartered in the Seattle metropolitan area.
As of August 2013, Seattle, Washington was home to four Fortune 500 companies: Internet retailer Amazon.com (#49), coffee chain Starbucks (#208), clothing merchant Nordstrom (#227), and Expeditors International (#428).[1] Four more are located in the metropolitan area: Costco Wholesale (#22), Microsoft (#35), Paccar (#168), and Weyerhaeuser (#363).

Think Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks with respect to Paccar.

Denver is doing just fine though. It still has that awesome downhome appeal.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Parking reductions would be of two major types:

1. The average highrise might do fewer spaces. They'd decide that their 300 units would be ok with 250 spaces instead of whatever is required now, and save a few million dollars. Or they'd do more units.

2. Smaller sites and smaller units would make FAR more sense than they do now. Picture a single lot where multi-level parking would be absurdly inefficient. Suddenly instead of four townhouses they can do 40 micros, at prices a new admin assistant can afford.

I realize I'm harping on this topic. But it's important.

Why I just read over the weekend how the RTP (Research Triangle Park) is getting mighty serious about their parking.

"Durham city, county leaders get serious about downtown growth"
May 19, 2016 by Amanda Hoyle, Triangle Business Journal

Durham City Council at its work session on Thursday evaluated a new recommendation by staff to not delay the start of construction for a $23 million, 7-story parking deck at the corner of Mangum and Morgan streets.

It is one of four new parking deck [Garages] projects that both Durham City Council and the Durham County Board of Commissioners have already started budging for over the next three years. The projects combined would add about 3,200 new parking options for downtown workers and visitors.

RTP going Urban. Build the parking and cars with people inside will come.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

I'm hoping to make it to this week's Denver Urbanism meetup. Maybe that would be a good time to start talking about action?

I'll be there!

[Alchemist]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Honestly that building isnt worth saving, and the renderings that included incorporation of the building just seemed awkward. I hope they go ahead with the tear down.

I disagree. While I don’t think that Smileys necessarily deserves landmark designation, it is a more architecturally interesting and appealing building than what is being proposed, which is really just a squat landscraper. Plus, what is with that white-colored loop?! It makes it look like an alien ship has landed!

A far better solution would be for the developer to first build something, around 8 stories, on the empty lot and then after a couple of years or so, tear down Smileys and build a second building of comparable scale. Or, if the market conditions are right, push for a zoning change and go higher. I would much rather have two different buildings of the same height than one building covering the entire length of a full block.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

It looks like Historic Denver/CHUN is pushing to oppose the non-historic designation of the Smileys laundromat at Downing/Colfax. Honestly that building isnt worth saving, and the renderings that included incorporation of the building just seemed awkward. I hope they go ahead with the tear down.

Sounds like a bunch of neighborhood groups are also petitioning city council to ban micro apartments (or at leas the no parking requirements attached to them). That should be interesting.

I lived near there and did laundry there in 1994. It was a dump...and the owner appeared to be some sort of slumlord with his workers living in dumpy apartments above the laundromat. Not worth saving.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

That's why I think you're spot on with the whole TOD thing. The only way to avoid neighborhood backlash is to build where there are no people, which in an urban context are dilapidated industrial neighborhoods. The only way to build mass transit and not piss off the neighbors is to also build in industrial corridors.

I remember seeing a news story back in the early days of the W line construction where some guy was suing RTD for their use of eminent domain. Nowadays, the W line is mostly useless because RTD had to concede to the neighbors concerns and run their trains at 25 MPH through western Denver. These same neighbors are fighting and kind of TOD development at the stations due to traffic. Direct democracy doesn't work when your community are ignorant and can't see the big picture past their front porch.

I feel like Denver is starting to get like Boulder regarding development sometimes. We had a very vocal minority screaming in Stapleton that they didn't want the Eastbridge town center to go in. When there was a big hole with a sign saying "future town center" sitting there for a decade. If you didn't want to live near a grocery store or retail, then you shouldn't have bought a house near a big empty lot with that sign!

[CherryCreek]

Ouch. Denver Post article indicates that Denver millennials may need 15 years to save up for a House down payment.

That's crazy. This certainly has potential to damper down inward migration to Denver, as compared to what we've seen over last five years, particularly among millennials.


http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/23/millennials-at-high-risk-of-always-renting/

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I feel like Denver is starting to get like Boulder regarding development sometimes. We had a very vocal minority screaming in Stapleton that they didn't want the Eastbridge town center to go in. When there was a big hole with a sign saying "future town center" sitting there for a decade. If you didn't want to live near a grocery store or retail, then you shouldn't have bought a house near a big empty lot with that sign!

There's even worse examples of course - people moving near an airport then complaining (or suing) about airport noise!

People complain about millennial sense of entitlement - they are not the only ones. Many people are quick to embrace a sense of victim hood and point fingers at others when avoiding the supposed harm was always within the obvious and easy control of the person doing the complaining.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by RyanD

I'll be there!

Cool! I have some work stuff going on, but I'm going to do my best to attend.

[RyanD]

15 years?! Ouch indeed. This is a fun read and I think Denver can piggyback on this in regards to our housing problem:

A guy just transcribed 30 years of for-rent ads. Here’s what it taught us about housing prices

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by RyanD

15 years?! Ouch indeed. This is a fun read and I think Denver can piggyback on this in regards to our housing problem:

A guy just transcribed 30 years of for-rent ads. Here’s what it taught us about housing prices

Fun article. Build, build, build!

Denver is doing a lot of that lately, though perhaps not enough? The scary thing is how little is being built for the entry level buyers. What does an "entry" level home even look like in Denver?

Something small from 1980s in a rundown "inner" suburb such as Lakewood, Wheatridge, Westminster or Northglenn? Put in 250K max for single family house in Denver and there's actually quite a bit.


http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/hou...,39.655663,-105.134697_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I lived near there and did laundry there in 1994. It was a dump...and the owner appeared to be some sort of slumlord with his workers living in dumpy apartments above the laundromat. Not worth saving.

That building has been renovated in the last couple years.

I'm a bit on the fence because I don't usually support tearing down old brick buildings like this one when there are so many parking holes and underutilized single story retail parcels along Colfax, but the rendering on Denver-Cityscape actually looks like decent architecture and it is planned to be a true mixed use project with retail, office, and residential.

[DUPio]

If you make 50k per year, that's roughly $3200 after tax per month. A mortgage on a 250k house with 20% down is almost $1400. That's 40% of your take-home income on housing for a cheap, run-down shoebox where I wouldn't feel comfortable raising a family down the road. This is less of a problem if you have a spouse who also works, but many millennials are marrying later, or not at all.

Getting ahead in Denver is insanely hard. I love Denver but it isn't worth sacrificing financial security to live here, which is why I am choosing to move once I finish grad school. Quite frankly I don't know how most people are affording it; there are only so many high-paying jobs here. A significant fraction of my friends who are 2-3 years out of school have little to no savings. Insanity.

[Midwest out West]

Originally Posted by enjo13

Portland has a condo market, we don't. Just about every building I think you're referring to are condo's. The apartment buildings out that way are largely the same basic stuff we're seeing here. That's true of Seattle too FWIW, I should have taken a picture from my hotel room. Capitol Hill in Seattle is a sea of 5-story EIFS buildings just like ours.

I 100% believe that within one year of the state actually fixing the condo defect issue (which at this point may never happen) we'd see 4-5 Portland style buildings out of the ground.

There are actually lots of lessons we can learn from Portland. The importance of fixed rail in terms of stimulating desnse urban growth. What's happened along their streetcar line is remarkable. What they do with food trucks and pods should be straight up copied, and could be done with one simple change at the city council level (Austin is seeing this as well). I've been in touch with my council person for years on that subject, they have no intention of making it easier to operate food trucks here. Which sucks, it's great for neighborhood development.

I think that since Portland has been a live model or sorts for New Urbanism over the past few decades there is even more than that we could learn to focus more quality development. Their road diet downtown with improved streetscapes, focus on intRAcity transit, design overlay zones, and, probably an unpopular vote within this forum given the constant wishing for a new tallest, being their modest height limits on buildings withing the urban core which drives the spread of additional infill and a more pedestrian friendly environment.

Comparing to Seattle, however, seems a bit of a fools errand at this point. A city that's significantly more dense and approaches 60-70% more economic output than Denver is not going to have a similar built environment, especially given Seattle's water boundaries and Denver's unlimited space and car culture. Not to mention their significant investment in intracity transit, including subways and expanding, mature commuter rail network. Although I think it would be good to look to Seattle, and Vancouver, with regard to how they're handling highway and transit development in general with the removal of highways and viaducts to restore the urban fabric, while Denver is looking to expand its urban highways and decimate the urban fabric north of downtown where perhaps a lot of these affordable for sale developments could land.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Fun article. Build, build, build!

Denver is doing a lot of that lately, though perhaps not enough? The scary thing is how little is being built for the entry level buyers. What does an "entry" level home even look like in Denver?

I've mentioned it before but in past economic cycles entry level housing always led us out of the doldrums.

Need another BUST.
Another fun memory is working with a nice young couple, recently married, recent HS graduates. He landed a "good" job as an auto mechanic, she found office work. Got them into a 2 Bdrm 2 Bath (foreclosed) townhome about 1,400SF with a double car attached garage for under $25,000 in the late 80's.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DUPio

If you make 50k per year, that's roughly $3200 after tax per month. A mortgage on a 250k house with 20% down is almost $1400. That's 40% of your take-home income on housing for a cheap, run-down shoebox where I wouldn't feel comfortable raising a family down the road. This is less of a problem if you have a spouse who also works, but many millennials are marrying later, or not at all.

Getting ahead in Denver is insanely hard. I love Denver but it isn't worth sacrificing financial security to live here, which is why I am choosing to move once I finish grad school. Quite frankly I don't know how most people are affording it; there are only so many high-paying jobs here. A significant fraction of my friends who are 2-3 years out of school have little to no savings. Insanity.

There are no $250,000 homes in Denver speak. Yes, there are always exceptions. And you might find the odd scattered 1960s-era condo unit (but then you add in $450 per month in fees in an old building, that aren't deductible, and you end up in the same place as a $350k home). I'm looking at $350,000 now, which is $2000 per month, and I can't get anything, I am failing, no matter how many pathetic mushy "pick me" letters I write. Any home in that price range has 10+ offers the day it goes on the market. Realistically, you need $400,000 to get into the market here unless you are willing to move to the suburbs.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Midwest out West

Comparing to Seattle, however, seems a bit of a fools errand at this point. A city that's significantly more dense and approaches 60-70% more economic output than Denver is not going to have a similar built environment, especially given Seattle's water boundaries and Denver's unlimited space and car culture. Not to mention their significant investment in intracity transit, including subways and expanding, mature commuter rail network. Although I think it would be good to look to Seattle, and Vancouver, with regard to how they're handling highway and transit development in general with the removal of highways and viaducts to restore the urban fabric, while Denver is looking to expand its urban highways and decimate the urban fabric north of downtown where perhaps a lot of these affordable for sale developments could land.

Oh come on now, Seattle is spending $4.25 BILLION to put a highway viaduct underground- not to remove it. Seattle isn't being a bold visionary in removing an eyesore with no replacement, they're going the Big Dig route and implementing a wildly expensive replacement because they've got funding structures up there that allow them to.

Vancouver's viaduct removal isn't even comparable- it's akin to the viaduct removal in the CPV that Denver implemented 20 years ago.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There are no $250,000 homes in Denver speak. Yes, there are always exceptions. And you might find the odd scattered 1960s-era condo unit (but then you add in $450 per month in fees in an old building, that aren't deductible, and you end up in the same place as a $350k home). I'm looking at $350,000 now, which is $2000 per month, and I can't get anything, I am failing, no matter how many pathetic mushy "pick me" letters I write. Any home in that price range has 10+ offers the day it goes on the market. Realistically, you need $400,000 to get into the market here unless you are willing to move to the suburbs.

Come to Stapleton- we'll get drunk at the Taphouse.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Come to Stapleton- we'll get drunk at the Taphouse.

I can't afford Stapleton dude, I'm a public servant. My last best hope was that RyanD would marry me, but now that possibility is gone too.