DENVER | Main Development Thread #7 - Page 109

Stonemans_rowJ · #**2161** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 3:28 PM**

The slot home ban honestly will not affect anything. In many cases it would allow more units in the development but would require the front unit to be different plan and without a garage or with a 1 car garage. Maybe this front unit would be less $$ and therefore bring the overall pricing down and open up the units to more buyers than when you have 12 all priced the same.

There are plenty of these "better" slot home sites all around town. The one that comes to mind right away is the one right next to Uncle and Bar Dough on 32nd. Full frontage on the width of the site.

RyanD · #**2162** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 3:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Welp, there goes this development cycle. A Tabor Two announcement is our local black swan.

But, damn, is that one sexy building.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

HighSt. · #**2163** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 3:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

guys... it's back!

https://www.twotabor.com

super fresh pic too, it has 1144 in the background

680,000 SF
BUILDING HEIGHT
33 stories, 460 feet tall

Jesus H. God. Everybody sell your stock and put it in CD's. If you have an investment property and you're near retirement, liquidate it. Hide your kids, hide your wife.

Also, I can't help but feel as though "Two Tabor" looks just as beholden to current trends in office design as the Memphis Style One Tabor does. Times change, but nothing else does.

CherryCreek · #**2164** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 3:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

The slot home ban honestly will not affect anything. In many cases it would allow more units in the development but would require the front unit to be different plan and without a garage or with a 1 car garage. Maybe this front unit would be less $$ and therefore bring the overall pricing down and open up the units to more buyers than when you have 12 all priced the same.

There are plenty of these "better" slot home sites all around town. The one that comes to mind right away is the one right next to Uncle and Bar Dough on 32nd. Full frontage on the width of the site.

Agreed, the slot home changes are pretty modest and sensible. Green roofs and growth limits on the other hand . . .

CherryCreek · #**2165** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Welp, there goes this development cycle. A Tabor Two announcement is our local black swan.

But, damn, is that one sexy building.

Timely article:

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news...le-stocks-a-black-swan-moment-after.html

wong21fr · #**2166** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

There are plenty of these "better" slot home sites all around town. The one that comes to mind right away is the one right next to Uncle and Bar Dough on 32nd. Full frontage on the width of the site.

Seems like if they had gone full slot on this site they could have gone with 13 units instead of 12. So while it is better aesthetically, this does seem like it is illustrative of the developer's complaint that they are losing a unit. Though this is only the case if the unit's are pretty homogeneous footprint wise. Making smaller units up front, as you mentioned, would take care of the unit issue.

DenvertoLA · #**2167** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Welp, there goes this development cycle. A Tabor Two announcement is our local black swan.

But, damn, is that one sexy building.

They did just invest 12 mil into redoing their plaza, that kinda makes them seen invested already, but maybe I'm being hopeful

corey · #**2168** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 5:04 PM**

The people behind the 1% growth limit piss me off. I’m sure they all own their own homes with big yards in wasteful post WWII American subdivisions. They love seeing their home values go up and don’t give a shit about anyone else trying to buy their first home. And do they really think their plan will solve any of the problems they complain about? They are also clueless about the array of negative effects this plan would have. Most of them, or at least their parents, moved here from somewhere else as well. Their biggest gripe in life is that traffic seems to be worse than it used to be, but they are the last people to ever take public transportation. Colorado is growing, but it is at a manageable pace as long as there is smart development.

twister244 · #**2169** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 6:04 PM**

Yeah, I can totally see the issues with the slot homes. My worry though is this is all part of a growing push back from NIMBYs in the metro area that have no conceptual understanding of the micro economic forces at work driving housing prices up. They also probably don't understand that if they cap growth, their prices will continue to sky-rocket, along with property taxes they will have to pay....

Here's another article about a wonderful NIMBY in RiNo who doesn't want the city to rezone land around the 38th/Blake station for higher towers with affordable housing......

http://www.9news.com/article/news/local/...ike-rezoning-plans-for-rino/73-516312280

kemachs · #**2170** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by corey

The people behind the 1% growth limit piss me off. I’m sure they all own their own homes with big yards in wasteful post WWII American subdivisions. They love seeing their home values go up and don’t give a shit about anyone else trying to buy their first home. And do they really think their plan will solve any of the problems they complain about? They are also clueless about the array of negative effects this plan would have. Most of them, or at least their parents, moved here from somewhere else as well. Their biggest gripe in life is that traffic seems to be worse than it used to be, but they are the last people to ever take public transportation. Colorado is growing, but it is at a manageable pace as long as there is smart development.

Speaking of public transportation (maybe this should be in the transit thread), Denver's planning department and/or RTD seems to have focused too much on connecting downtown with the metro, and has left behind city neighborhoods in the process. I'm a huge fan of the density increase and revitalization Denver is experiencing out in the 'hoods, but they become much more stressful to live in when everyone is forced to drive. Why the heck aren't we building more rail lines in the city, where they make the most sense and would serve the most people? Colfax, Broadway, and/or Colorado Boulevard seem like no-brainier corridors to invest in, and the city/state are in a good place to make these investments at the moment. Is something like TABOR standing in the way, where the whole state would have to approve new rail lines that only serve the city and county of Denver? Should Denver have its own separate transit authority?

wong21fr · #**2171** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemachs

Speaking of public transportation (maybe this should be in the transit thread), Denver's planning department and/or RTD seems to have focused too much on connecting downtown with the metro, and has left behind city neighborhoods in the process. I'm a huge fan of the density increase and revitalization Denver is experiencing out in the 'hoods, but they become much more stressful to live in when everyone is forced to drive. Why the heck aren't we building more rail lines in the city, where they make the most sense and would serve the most people? Colfax, Broadway, and/or Colorado Boulevard seem like no-brainier corridors to invest in, and the city/state are in a good place to make these investments at the moment. Is something like TABOR standing in the way, where the whole state would have to approve new rail lines that only serve the city and county of Denver? Should Denver have its own separate transit authority?

Already in the works:
Denver Moves: Transit

Mayor Hancock Announces Major Reorganization of Public Works to Emphasize Mobility: Restructuring will Precede Smooth Transition to New Deptartment of Transportation

kemachs · #**2172** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 6:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Already in the works:
Denver Moves: Transit

Mayor Hancock Announces Major Reorganization of Public Works to Emphasize Mobility: Restructuring will Precede Smooth Transition to New Deptartment of Transportation

Oh nice, that's a good start!

bunt_q · #**2173** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemachs

and the city/state are in a good place to make these investments at the moment. Is something like TABOR standing in the way, where the whole state would have to approve new rail lines that only serve the city and county of Denver?

Only part I might question is the statement that we are in a good place to make this investment now. We are broke. I suppose we could go to the voters for more revenue, but there hasn't been much of an appetite for that yet.

kemachs · #**2174** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 7:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Only part I might question is the statement that we are in a good place to make this investment now. We are broke. I suppose we could go to the voters for more revenue, but there hasn't been much of an appetite for that yet.

I wish this revenue, even some of it, could go towards transit investment:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/...do-pot-tax-revenue-surpasses-500-million

mojiferous · #**2175** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by corey

The people behind the 1% growth limit piss me off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twister244

Here's another article about a wonderful NIMBY in RiNo who doesn't want the city to rezone land around the 38th/Blake station for higher towers with affordable housing......

http://www.9news.com/article/news/local/...ike-rezoning-plans-for-rino/73-516312280

The 1% growth guy is a well-known NIMBY that helped craft Golden's growth cap. He's like the Douglas Bruce of NIMBYism. Also, it sounds like he's a pretty despicable person. https://www.denverite.com/colorado-anti-growth-initiative-48498/

And Candi CdeBaca comes from the opposite end of the spectrum politically but has also been involved in multiple growth-related fights - she helped lead the neighborhood fight against I-70 (before Kyle Zeppelin decided to make it his hill to die on.) I swear she talked about running for city council against Albus Brooks with a campaign based on resistance to the drainage plan, but I might be wrong about that.

Point is - neither of them are newly-minted NIMBYs that appeared from nowhere. Neither of them are going to give up their battles because of "potential economic damage" or complaints from developers. Neither will likely listen to anyone that says that their ideas will lead to higher prices and more inequality. Or that their stated goals of their efforts are unlikely given their methods. The only way to make sure their efforts are in vain is to make sure the voting public knows the consequences of pursuing these options.

DenvertoLA · #**2176** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 8:02 PM**

Does anyone have anymore news one this project? I really like its design

https://www.oyster.life/gigamoto

The Dirt · #**2177** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 8:54 PM**

According to the Denver permitting site, there's been nothing new since mid 2016. They submitted a concept plan in May 2016 and purchased the land in August 2016. Sounds like a dead project to me.

COtoOC · #**2178** Posted **Feb 12, 2018, 3:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojiferous

The 1% growth guy is a well-known NIMBY that helped craft Golden's growth cap. He's like the Douglas Bruce of NIMBYism. Also, it sounds like he's a pretty despicable person. https://www.denverite.com/colorado-anti-growth-initiative-48498/

And Candi CdeBaca comes from the opposite end of the spectrum politically but has also been involved in multiple growth-related fights - she helped lead the neighborhood fight against I-70 (before Kyle Zeppelin decided to make it his hill to die on.) I swear she talked about running for city council against Albus Brooks with a campaign based on resistance to the drainage plan, but I might be wrong about that.

Point is - neither of them are newly-minted NIMBYs that appeared from nowhere. Neither of them are going to give up their battles because of "potential economic damage" or complaints from developers. Neither will likely listen to anyone that says that their ideas will lead to higher prices and more inequality. Or that their stated goals of their efforts are unlikely given their methods. The only way to make sure their efforts are in vain is to make sure the voting public knows the consequences of pursuing these options.

If you have to state that your argument isn't racist, it probably is. He sounds like a real prick.

CherryCreek · #**2179** Posted **Feb 12, 2018, 3:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojiferous

The 1% growth guy is a well-known NIMBY that helped craft Golden's growth cap. He's like the Douglas Bruce of NIMBYism. Also, it sounds like he's a pretty despicable person. https://www.denverite.com/colorado-anti-growth-initiative-48498/

And Candi CdeBaca comes from the opposite end of the spectrum politically but has also been involved in multiple growth-related fights - she helped lead the neighborhood fight against I-70 (before Kyle Zeppelin decided to make it his hill to die on.) I swear she talked about running for city council against Albus Brooks with a campaign based on resistance to the drainage plan, but I might be wrong about that.

Point is - neither of them are newly-minted NIMBYs that appeared from nowhere. Neither of them are going to give up their battles because of "potential economic damage" or complaints from developers. Neither will likely listen to anyone that says that their ideas will lead to higher prices and more inequality. Or that their stated goals of their efforts are unlikely given their methods. The only way to make sure their efforts are in vain is to make sure the voting public knows the consequences of pursuing these options.

That's all true, but the anti-NIMBY message can't be just we're anti-NIMBY or this is bad for development. I think its critical to put forth an appealing vision of the future for the City that actually resonates with people. I would revert back to "responsible growth", "smart growth" , etc. And talk about how some of the things people are upset about can be managed (ironically, considering who the opposition is, one of those ways is through the "smart" redevelopment of I-70).

I think the blowback in the UK with Brexit and in the US with Trumpism, is the not-totally-unfounded perception that in many cases, the "good times" benefit only the rich and not "regular" people. It's important to articulate how growth in Denver can benefit most people and to have real ideas on the table on how to mitigate the things people don't like about growth.

twister244 · #**2180** Posted **Feb 12, 2018, 4:51 PM**

Definitely agree on the "smart growth" idea and concept. I think Denver is trying with some of their agenda items, such as the Denver Movies initiative, and the impending vote today on the rezoning of RiNo to allow for not only higher density, but more affordable housing. Speaking of which, here is a good article on that with some nice neighborhood photos centered on ongoing projects.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/12/denver-rino-higher-buildings-affordable-housing/