DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Midwest out West

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.

The highway expansion north of downtown involves tearing down a long section of (crumbling) elevated highway that is currently dividing the neighborhoods to the north and south, putting it underground, and building a park on top that actually connects the neighborhoods to the north and south. Denver restored much of its urban fabric by tearing down the vast majority of downtown-area viaducts decades ago. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[COtoOC]

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.

This reminds me of when we bought a condo in SoCal in 1999. We bid on about 20 condos before getting one. At the time, we didn't realize we were truly "buying low". Then we got lucky with a job opportunity in Denver in 2005, so "sold high"... again, just luck. And that allowed us to put a huge down payment on a house in Stapleton. But I worry for my kids. How will they afford it? If they're lucky, we die before they get too old and they get an inheritance! I never thought Denver would get so expensive.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by jhwk

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.

Yeah, I don't like the idea of tearing down nice old brick buildings. I just don't recall this one striking me as all that nice. Maybe I need a second look at it. But that area was pretty sketch in the mid 90s. There wasn't even much worth walking to at the time other than a couple gay bars and a bus stop.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Midwest out West

Not to mention their significant investment in intracity transit, including subways and expanding, mature commuter rail network.

We do occasionally have interesting discussions on the Transit Thread.

While it may be quite nice, my understanding is that when Seattle completes their current menu of transit projects in 2023 they'll have about 50 miles of light rail. From a base of roughly 16 miles Sound Transit 2, at a cost of $17.8 billion will bring the total to about 50 miles.

Maybe not as nice but by the end of this year RTD/Fastracks will have 98 miles of light/commuter rail with another 15 miles to be added in 2019 at a cost of roughly $5.5 Billion. While Seattle does have plans for Sound Transit 3 (needing voter approval) which would add enough miles to match Denver it will cost an est. $50 Billion and take 25 years for buildout.

Originally Posted by Midwest out West

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.

For whatever reason it's amazing how many don't appreciate how critically important Interstate highways are for the movement of goods and services, both intrastate and interstate, that people need and use every day. Not only people in the urban core but all over the state(s).

When I-70 opened in the 1960's there was no problem with its location. The pending project includes both preserving and enhancing the neighborhoods to the north.

[idiot206]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

While it may be quite nice, my understanding is that when Seattle completes their current menu of transit projects in 2023 they'll have about 50 miles of light rail. From a base of roughly 16 miles Sound Transit 2, at a cost of $17.8 billion will bring the total to about 50 miles.

According to recent estimates, since the opening of the U-Link extension, Seattle's 18.75 miles of light rail is exceeding 82,000 boardings a day. That's almost as much as Denver's entire current LRT system. Link in Seattle barely leaves the city limits (only two stations currently: Tukwila and SeaTac airport).

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

The highway expansion north of downtown involves tearing down a long section of (crumbling) elevated highway that is currently dividing the neighborhoods to the north and south, putting it underground, and building a park on top that actually connects the neighborhoods to the north and south. Denver restored much of its urban fabric by tearing down the vast majority of downtown-area viaducts decades ago. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

That's one of the best things about Denver -- much of Downtown isn't ringed by freeway barriers.

As for Seattle's tunnel, I supported it even as a car-less urbanist. It was about eliminating barriers on the central waterfront and north of Denny Way. The city is shaped like a funnel and the alternative was widening surface streets even with some transit added. Downtown has too much pass-through traffic already.

The best downtowns have very little pass-through traffic. Some of the best are Portland and Vancouver. Denver is better than Seattle in this regard.

[CherryCreek]

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.

Boy do I got a deal for you! 49th and Grove! In Denver! Single family home! $230,000.

This one will go fast.
http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/hou...,39.626581,-105.104485_rect/11_zm/0_mmm/

[mhays]

Originally Posted by idiot206

According to recent estimates, since the opening of the recent U-Link extension, Seattle's 18.75 miles of light rail is exceeding 82,000 boardings a day. That's almost as much as Denver's entire current LRT system.

It's had two peak days at 82,000 due to a temporary highway closure and an event. The average has been 60,000. http://www.soundtransit.org/Rider-Commun...arlier-estimated-opening-university-link

PS Wikipedia says it's 17.3 miles. The longer figure includes a streetcar in Tacoma that they call "light rail."

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

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.

I'm speechless. Can't believe he did that.

FWIW, there's a nice quiet neighborhood that I once found approximately north of Fitz along Sand Creek. This area. Have no idea the current state of pricing there and it is in your favorite city.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by idiot206

According to recent estimates, since the opening of the U-Link extension, Seattle's 18.75 miles of light rail is exceeding 82,000 boardings a day. That's almost as much as Denver's entire current LRT system. Link in Seattle barely leaves the city limits (only two stations currently: Tukwila and SeaTac airport).

All about population density!

Seattle is approaching 8,000 persons per sq mile. Denver is around 4,000. However, we are rapidly densifying. Be interesting to see our number in 10 years.

[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.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

The highway expansion north of downtown involves tearing down a long section of (crumbling) elevated highway that is currently dividing the neighborhoods to the north and south, putting it underground, and building a park on top that actually connects the neighborhoods to the north and south. Denver restored much of its urban fabric by tearing down the vast majority of downtown-area viaducts decades ago. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

I apologize, I wasn't trying to indicate that Denver has viaducts they can tear down. Rather I was just saying that it seems like those cities are working to improve their walkability and the general urban environment of the core raising the price of properties and making higher quality developments more possible, whereas Denver is working to expand Broadway, expand I-70 and mostly ignore intracity transit with the exception of possible BRT on Colfax.

I get what you're saying about I-70, but that park they're putting on top of it is pretty small portion and I'm not sure many of the residents in those neighborhoods would agree with you that they're being reconnected and have even funded studies reviewing a boulevard alternative - especially after we just spent over $1 billion on a rail line to serve a similar route.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

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.

True, but they also funding a $50 BILLION transit plan under "ST3."

[DenverPoke]

I believe as of 2015 estimates Denver is closer to 4,400 per square mile and if you take out the airport (80249 zip) it is more like 6,300.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

I believe as of 2015 estimates Denver is closer to 4,400 per square mile and if you take out the airport (80249 zip) it is more like 6,300.

Of course since these are metro wide public transport systems, metro density might be a better measure.

Best numbers I see is the Seattle metro at around 600 per/sq mi and Denver around 300.

Sounds about right if you've spent much time between the two metros.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Midwest out West

I get what you're saying about I-70, but that park they're putting on top of it is pretty small portion and I'm not sure many of the residents in those neighborhoods would agree with you that they're being reconnected and have even funded studies reviewing a boulevard alternative - especially after we just spent over $1 billion on a rail line to serve a similar route.

The I-70 project has been a dozen year process. Most of the residents that have been involved along the way are accepting and excited about the improvements - a bunch of Johnny-come-lately's that have tried to feed their urban fantasies notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Midwest out West

True, but they also funding a $50 BILLION transit plan under "ST3."

Darn, did I miss the vote. When did it pass?

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Midwest out West

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.

You've... been to Globeville and Swansea, right? The "urban fabric" is already mostly dirty stretches of highway, rail yard, factories, and junk yards. The neighborhoods aren't going to be any worse off because of the highway expansion as they have already been torn apart by I-70 for 50 years (and they are mostly small, blue-collar housing built to be close to factories, not for aesthetics or size). And one of the main reasons homes in these neighborhoods are affordable is because of the horrible history of pollution. Sure, most of the arsenic, mercury, and radioactive soil was removed, but it's still hard to sell a place with that kind of history.

Some of the people fighting I-70 cling to some romantic idea that turning it into a boulevard will magically repair decades of neglect and lack of infrastructure and that routing traffic around (or through at a slower speed) would improve the pollution and noise levels. I suspect these are the same people that think moving the mall shuttle to the two main thoroughfares through downtown would improve the mall, or that never building anything in city-center neighborhoods will make rent fall again.

The reality is that Denver was mostly built for the automobile and building transit to service everyone who uses the highway is probably not feasible.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

I suspect these are the same people that think moving the mall shuttle to the two main thoroughfares through downtown would improve the mall

I 100% believe that. I'm also not stupid.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The I-70 project has been a dozen year process. Most of the residents that have been involved along the way are accepting and excited about the improvements - a bunch of Johnny-come-lately's that have tried to feed their urban fantasies notwithstanding.

Darn, did I miss the vote. When did it pass?

True, the $50 billion ST3 just a proposal scheduled for a vote in November. We're currently spending the $17 billion ST2 transit funding. Meanwhile there's a lot of public process about what will be included, and when, over a 25 year period. Some say it's too suburban focused in the early stages. The least controversial part might be including a third Downtown transit tunnel.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

My last best hope was that RyanD would marry me, but now that possibility is gone too.

Bahahaha even being married now, I still can't afford anything here.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I'm speechless. Can't believe he did that.

I'm a horrible person I know. I married into love vs. co-signing mortgages and owning property.

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Some of the people fighting I-70 cling to some romantic idea that turning it into a boulevard will magically repair decades of neglect and lack of infrastructure and that routing traffic around (or through at a slower speed) would improve the pollution and noise levels. I suspect these are the same people that think moving the mall shuttle to the two main thoroughfares through downtown would improve the mall, or that never building anything in city-center neighborhoods will make rent fall again.

I would love to see all the freight traffic run on this magical boulevard they are envisioning. That wouldn't be obnoxious at all. I'm just imagining all of the semi traffic you see today on 70 and putting it on a Monaco Pkwy / 6th Ave Pkwy type road. I'm sure the neighborhoods would love that. Not to mention the train freight yard which would run right at the stub end of their public area / plaza master plan. So trains, semis and a whole hell of a lot of traffic. I would like to think they are thinking things through but I just don't see much of the logic in the grand boulevard plan given what's along that corridor.

I honestly don't care what they do but whatever happens it's going to piss someone off. Like I keep saying, it's going to be a hilarious day when CDOT gives everyone the middle finger and just rebuilds the viaduct. Everybody loses and you gotta use those bridge enterprise funds somewhere!

Oh mall shuttles. While attended Transit Alliance, Nate from RTD said that if you were to take the shuttles away from 16th Street Mall, it would be a nightmare getting reliable service on the 15/17th street corridors because of traffic (you'd need a dedicated lane) and that the mall would die because of what the mall is: a transit corridor. I was actually the one who asked the question about what he / RTD thinks about taking the shuttles off, and he just laughed it away basically saying it's not gonna happen.

[TakeFive]

mhays... Got it.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by idiot206

According to recent estimates, since the opening of the U-Link extension, Seattle's 18.75 miles of light rail is exceeding 82,000 boardings a day. That's almost as much as Denver's entire current LRT system. Link in Seattle barely leaves the city limits (only two stations currently: Tukwila and SeaTac airport).

According to February 9 estimates, RTD light rail has 140,000 train boardings.