DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[twister244]

For comic relief, a quote from someone opposed to this:

“This is really dense. Twelve or 16 stories — that’s like downtown,” said Drew Dutcher, president of the Elyria and Swansea Neighborhood Association. “In this race to develop all we can, we wake up one day and find we have really diminished the quality of life in the city because we’ve densified.”

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by twister244

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/

And a great quote from the usual fucktard Eleria/Swansea/Globevill crowd.

This is really dense. Twelve or 16 stories — that’s like downtown,” said Drew Dutcher, president of the Elyria and Swansea Neighborhood Association. “In this race to develop all we can, we wake up one day and find we have really diminished the quality of life in the city because we’ve densified.

Oh, and Brad Evans of Denver Fugly has his panties in a bunch about this as well- mainly because he thinks that it's being oversold as a solution to providing affordable housing in Denver.

[CherryCreek]

One other thing on the whole "1% Growth Initiative." To the extent that Denver is a serious Amazon H2Q candidate, that could be the nail in the coffin.

There is no way in hell that Amazon could expand into Denver the way it's talking about under the 1% Growth Initiative without substantially increasing its costs. If they are paying attention (and I assume they are) they may view this as evidence that Denver is not really receptive to something on their scale.

I have mixed feelings about Amazon and don't necessarily think them passing on Denver is a negative, but hate to see something as mindless as the 1% growth initiative be a factor in that.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

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.

Totally agree! One major takeaway I had from the Denveright meetings was that the city's messaging about why density or transit is good for the city and its citizens isn't that well developed. There was a lot of "if there is density or transit added, where should it be?" without explaining that density in someplace like Southmoor or West Highland can have great benefits and isn't just "highrises" in the middle of their neighborhood. We should really be focusing on the bits of education for all the people not involved or interested in development or city planning.

It also still amazes me that a lot of developers aren't doing any kind of neighborhood research and falling back to "it's allowed by zoning" or property rights arguments when there is inevitable opposition to their proposal. NIMBY's arguments are successful because half the time the only counter-argument is "the city said I could build this here and it's within legal limits".

[TakeFive]

I don't see the 1% growth initiative going anywhere (I don't think); this however could become a real deterrent.

Benefit and cost: Prominent local architect talks green roof initiative
Feb 9, 2018 By Kelcey McClung – Denver Business Journal

"Is the benefit going to justify the cost?" That's what Bill Moon, managing principal of Tryba Architects asked when he sat down with The Denver Business Journal to discuss the green roof initiative.

"In Denver, my concern is that it has been and continues to be challenging to introduce and grow plants," he said. "Growing plants in the ground can be tough enough, let alone rooftops."

Discussing design, Moon said that to offset the "great winds and intense sunshine" in Denver, architects would have to start looking at introducing water and shade structures to the roof, which would add more cost to the building.

"Initially, the builder is going to incur all the costs," he said. "But the next cost is going to be passed down to the people who occupy the building, which could exacerbate that problem [affordable housing in Denver]."

What about the Denver Botanic Gardens? They have a nice green roof.

Tryba designed the Denver Botanic Gardens, which has a green roof garden as well as plant life throughout the parking structure. In addition the cost of installing the roof, Moon said it's important to consider the cost of upkeep.

"The roof and wall are at a professionally managed garden surrounded by horticulturists — so it works well for that property," he said.

For that project, Moon said Tryba worked with specialists and landscape architects to pick the shade, water structures and down to each plant. Different plants were chosen depending on their location and how often they were in the sun versus the shade. Keeping those roofs alive, particularly when they are much higher up, is going to take time, effort and a lot more money.

If the city and its citizenry think green roofs are important then they should bear the initial capital costs and ongoing maintenance costs. This could be done simply enough by allowing a credit against property taxes for example. Don't cram the responsibility onto developers. What a clustermuck.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Totally agree! One major takeaway I had from the Denveright meetings was that the city's messaging about why density or transit is good for the city and its citizens isn't that well developed.

Excellent points.

I have tons of empathy for those who have lived in their 'hood for many years and decades and are easily leery of all the change. The same could apply to those who have more recently spent a lot of money to live in a neighborhood where they loved the character and feel of it.

That said, change is inevitable and it can be both managed and enabled so that everybody ultimately benefits. Better messaging is a critical part of understanding and not being paranoid by the change.

[CastleScott]

Hey guys and gals-check this out what came back from the dead:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=135860&page=4

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

NIMBY's arguments are successful because half the time the only counter-argument is "the city said I could build this here and it's within legal limits".

Why can't developers say this?

The city didn't just spontaneously appear on fields which had giant R3's, B1's and other zoning monikers etched into the land naturally. The last time the zoning was redone there was literally years of begging the public for their input. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to say "this is allowed by zoning." It's a very different phrase than say, "this project doesn't violate any laws of physics and should therefore be allowed".

[Brainpathology]

$20 says a certain former poster from Pueblo is somehow behind the 1% growth limit proposal because he knows what a gigantic boon this would eventually be for tertiary towns and "metro" areas in other parts of the state.

[Agent Orange]

City Council voted 10-2 to move forward with upzoning of 38th and Blake.

https://www.denverite.com/38th-blake-rezoning-48580/

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

City Council voted 10-2 to move forward with upzoning of 38th and Blake.

https://www.denverite.com/38th-blake-rezoning-48580/

Not surprised it passed. Even still though, this has significant repercussions on the RiNo area. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing faster movement on a couple projects in the area (WTC, Giambrocco) with possibly new projects being proposed to take advantage of the new zoning.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by mojiferous View Post
NIMBY's arguments are successful because half the time the only counter-argument is "the city said I could build this here and it's within legal limits".
Why can't developers say this?

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Why can't developers say this?

Developers can say whatever they want, but I think the point is that the booming growth and its associated problems is resulting in A LOT of push back from segments of the population. This push back threatens changes, both small (Slot home ban) and large (1% growth limits) that could impact and even threaten development opportunities, growth, jobs,and common sense.

In the case of some slot homes in certain Denver neighborhoods, in some cases developers were able to ignore neighborhood opposition and stand on their existing development rights. But the result was that the rules are now being changed for future developers.

The point of a credible strategy is just that -strategic. A strategy not focused on any one opportunity that a particular developer has a legal right to build but instead a long term vision of long-term thinking property owners, developers and stakeholders in the community who think that growth is generally a positive for a community. A vision they can articulate that can beat back the push by NIMBYS and other assorted self-promoters to make destructive changes in the zoning or other legal rules that have a potential to do long term damage to our state and Front Range cities. My fear is that a 1% growth limit (if they can get it on the ballot) has a very real chance of passing absent a coherent strategy to defeat it.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

$20 says a certain former poster from Pueblo is somehow behind the 1% growth limit proposal because he knows what a gigantic boon this would eventually be for tertiary towns and "metro" areas in other parts of the state.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Why can't developers say this?

The city didn't just spontaneously appear on fields which had giant R3's, B1's and other zoning monikers etched into the land naturally. The last time the zoning was redone there was literally years of begging the public for their input. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to say "this is allowed by zoning." It's a very different phrase than say, "this project doesn't violate any laws of physics and should therefore be allowed".

It may be reasonable and they can certainly say it, but having that as the only answer when a group of NIMBYs challenges your plan is a recipe for disaster. "This is allowed by zoning" empowers city council members to try to rezone your lot, encourages NIMBY groups to sue the city because your land was "incorrectly zoned," and makes neighborhood groups contemplate downzoning.

You want to get your micro-unit building built with no parking? Come with some (preferably inflated) calculations of what rent is going to be if you have to build parking and publicly shame the neighborhood NIMBYs by painting them as gouging the poor. Dig up some stats on how much CO2 the average car emits in a year and ask why city council members want to add to pollution and climate change...

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

It may be reasonable and they can certainly say it, but having that as the only answer when a group of NIMBYs challenges your plan is a recipe for disaster. "This is allowed by zoning" empowers city council members to try to rezone your lot, encourages NIMBY groups to sue the city because your land was "incorrectly zoned," and makes neighborhood groups contemplate downzoning.

You want to get your micro-unit building built with no parking? Come with some (preferably inflated) calculations of what rent is going to be if you have to build parking and publicly shame the neighborhood NIMBYs by painting them as gouging the poor. Dig up some stats on how much CO2 the average car emits in a year and ask why city council members want to add to pollution and climate change...

Recall the office building proposed in Cherry Creek that is now Halycon Hotel. I think the office building was a use of right, but massive neighborhood opposition and a threatened (or even actual) lawsuit derailed the project. If you have a "one-hit wonder" that you are willing to go all in on and don't give damn what anything thinks and are willing to defend the project at any cost, of course you can. But for developers who plan on sticking around and have a lot of different projects pending being a little strategic can be a good thing.

[fleury]

Wow...very cool! They even have the new plaza. Although some could consider this to be the kiss of death.

Originally Posted by CastleScott

Hey guys and gals-check this out that came back from the dead:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=135860&page=4

[twister244]

Very interesting article from Westword on Sun Valley....

http://www.westword.com/news/sun-valley-...reas-could-be-the-next-big-thing-9981911

I can't help but read in-between the lines and think there is some serious planning for this area taking place behind the scenes.....

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

The point of a credible strategy is just that -strategic. A strategy not focused on any one opportunity that a particular developer has a legal right to build but instead a long term vision of long-term thinking property owners, developers and stakeholders in the community who think that growth is generally a positive for a community. A vision they can articulate that can beat back the push by NIMBYS and other assorted self-promoters to make destructive changes in the zoning or other legal rules that have a potential to do long term damage to our state and Front Range cities.

What you just described is the zoning process itself. Having to budget in the spoiled rotten entitled morons of a city into every plan just contributes to eventually driving costs up. The zoning code gets rewritten and updated many many times with public input solicited through the entire process. If the city/state is going to put ANY stock at all into the zoning process then they need to ban lawsuits (or make them MUCH harder to win) against developments which follow the zoning. If a butt-hurt NIMBY in any neighborhood can challenge any project that follows the zoning but that they don't like because their sidewalk snow won't melt as fast as they like then the city/state needs to seriously consider no longer wasting time on zoning at all. Then let the developers put the money they would have had to put into designing proposals and the approval process into bribing the neighbors into letting them build. There is no reason they should have to spend money on both ends.

BTW I'm aware that this is obviously a right/wrong doesn't equal true/false sort of argument. There is no way the electorate of any American city has the sophistication to see either of these issues in any intelligent way.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by twister244

Very interesting article from Westword on Sun Valley....

http://www.westword.com/news/sun-valley-...reas-could-be-the-next-big-thing-9981911

I can't help but read in-between the lines and think there is some serious planning for this area taking place behind the scenes.....

Dang, that is a loooong read; at first I thought it must be one of Alan Prendergast's pieces; instead it's by Margaret Jackson. Props to Margaret for continuing to scratch out a living year's after leaving the Denver Post. That piece (IMO) would have been better if broken into pieces as a series; still I commend her excellent article.

Hopefully some of the developers will donate some money to the Greenway Foundation for their efforts to enhance the Platte River in this area so they can continue their awesome work.

Especially interesting is the efforts of Adrianna Abarca and her family's history resulting in creating the Latino Cultural Arts Center.

DHA owns a lot of the land/housing ofc; it's by selling some of it off that they hope to create necessary funding for new and better affordable housing. Hoping for federal grants at this point seems more of a fool's errand unfortunately.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by fleury

Wow...very cool! They even have the new plaza. Although some could consider this to be the kiss of death.

The last time Tabor 2 and 18th & Market were proposed at the same time we had financial collapse. Is the end of the Market cycle on the horizon this time around?