DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I like how there seems to be a much larger focus on transit-oriented development in Denver. I'm taking the light rail and there is substantial development around the Broadway Station, Alameda Station, and 10th and Osage.

[Alchemist]

Originally Posted by twister244

It's the first I have heard of the Zia project, along with that Sloan's Lake concept they show.

Zia is a full-block, mixed-use, mixed for-sale/rental development in Sunnyside. On the west side of the rail lines right across from the 41st/Fox station. IIRC, there was supposed to be an affordable component, as well.

The architect is Craine Architecture (Lydian, Wheatley)
https://www.crainearch.com/portfolio/zia-nodo/

Plus, they have a website.http://livezia.com

And, according to the Sunnyside Neighborhood Facebook page, the developer will be breaking ground this Wednesday, Sept 12th.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by pablosan

One of my favorite street scenes.

What street is that?

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

What street is that?

Chestnut Place in the Union Station district

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by Meliorem

I agree.

That being said, all cities in the US should look to cities like Copenhagen (Denmark) and Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and less Dubai or Shanghai on how to innovate and develop their cities in environmentally friendly ways.

Agreed! Please use Copenhagen as a benchmark. I think having Elitch be more like a Tivoli Garden would be good start. Also, turning more alleyways into activated areas would be amazing! Imagine all of LoDo having that as part of the scene? It would be a huge draw.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Meliorem

Ihat being said, all cities in the US should look to cities like Copenhagen (Denmark) and Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and less Dubai or Shanghai on how to innovate and develop their cities in environmentally friendly ways.

Denver already has its own waterways, perhaps something similar could be achieved there.

All good, except there would be nothing environmentally friendly about diverting additional water for artificial canals in the middle of a high desert. That's more Vegas than Copenhagen.

[Meliorem]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

All good, except there would be nothing environmentally friendly about diverting additional water for artificial canals in the middle of a high desert. That's more Vegas than Copenhagen.

Environmentally friendly in the sense of emulating Copenhagen's widespread bicycle culture (linked video) and peds-first ideology — not necessarily its canals, although I'm sure they too would make for a cool neighborhood.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Meliorem

Environmentally friendly in the sense of emulating Copenhagen's widespread bicycle culture (linked video) and peds-first ideology — not necessarily its canals, although I'm sure they too would make for a cool neighborhood.

I’ve always thought if there was anywhere you could actually do that in Denver it would be where the RTD yard is over at 31st & Ringsby by TAXI. That area is already in the flood plain unlike RiNo which sits higher allowing canals to operate with water diverted from the South Platte. The Front Range is actually full of irrigation canals from the High Line to dozens of others especially in Lakewood, Arvada and up to Westminster.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Meliorem

Environmentally friendly in the sense of emulating Copenhagen's widespread bicycle culture (linked video) and peds-first ideology — not necessarily its canals, although I'm sure they too would make for a cool neighborhood.

That ideology would quadruple my commute. (And I live "in the city" for crying out loud.) No thanks, too far, and my days are already too busy. Unfortunately, I can't afford to live any closer; I live exactly as close as I could afford.

[Meliorem]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That ideology would quadruple my commute. (And I live "in the city" for crying out loud.) No thanks, too far, and my days are already too busy. Unfortunately, I can't afford to live any closer; I live exactly as close as I could afford.

Denver has the critical mass and density in its CBD and inner city limits to support a robust bicycle network.

The idea is that you plan and build with the bicyclist/pedestrian (transit) in mind in the city, effectively making the usage of vehicles in that specific area an annoyance and just as important, slower. You support the ideology with metro-wide transit that makes sense. More lines, fewer detours (hello RTD) and if done right, you end up with a faster commute, significant increase in ridership, boosting TOD and in turn, a greener city with higher concentrations of pedestrian/retail footprint and plenty room for everyone, so you still get to drive your car to a local station or into the city if that's your wish.

The ideologies aren't mutually exclusive. It's really more of a hybrid where you accommodate all means of transportation without turning everything into a gridlock twice a day. You are not going to solve todays and future demands by carving up entire neighborhoods with 20 lanes of highways and its inevitable expansions (whether above- or below-grade) and dumping unattractive 10-story tall parking structures (what's the current record at?) on every street corner.

It's a fallacy at best.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Meliorem

Denver has the critical mass and density in its CBD and inner city limits to support a robust bicycle network.

The idea is that you plan and build with the bicyclist/pedestrian (transit) in mind in the city, effectively making the usage of vehicles in that specific area an annoyance and just as important, slower. You support the ideology with metro-wide transit that makes sense. More lines, fewer detours (hello RTD) and if done right, you end up with a faster commute, significant increase in ridership, boosting TOD and in turn, a greener city with higher concentrations of pedestrian/retail footprint and plenty room for everyone, so you still get to drive your car to a local station or into the city if that's your wish.

The ideologies aren't mutually exclusive. It's really more of a hybrid where you accommodate all means of transportation without turning everything into a gridlock twice a day. You are not going to solve todays and future demands by carving up entire neighborhoods with 20 lanes of highways and its inevitable expansions (whether above- or below-grade) and dumping unattractive 10-story tall parking structures (what's the current record at?) on every street corner.

It's a fallacy at best.

And where in this fantasy do you pay for this? Expanded transit network, robust cycling network, pedestrian improvement are wonderful idea, but where along does the funding come from? Do we increase taxes, redirect funding from roads, slash funding for poor folks, or a combination of all of these things? I think that it should come from parks, affordable housing, and homeless programs (with police brutality applied on an Orwellian scale to drive the homeless out to Aurora) but that would make me the worst villain since Hitler.

It's like talking to the Denver FUGLY crowd- everything can be solved by more money taken from the rich and the the city not wasting money on frivolous things like police and airports.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

And where in this fantasy do you pay for this? Expanded transit network, robust cycling network, pedestrian improvement are wonderful idea, but where along does the funding come from? Do we increase taxes, redirect funding from roads, slash funding for poor folks, or a combination of all of these things? I think that it should come from parks, affordable housing, and homeless programs (with police brutality applied on an Orwellian scale to drive the homeless out to Aurora) but that would make me the worst villain since Hitler.

It's like talking to the Denver FUGLY crowd- everything can be solved by more money taken from the rich and the the city not wasting money on frivolous things like police and airports.

That's why progressive don't win elections. Believe me, I am not thrilled about a Governor Stapleton. But I think the odds of it are better than 50/50. Free, free, free everything is not a plan.

And to be clear, Swedish voters might vote for you these days if you were Hitler. All it takes are a few brown people, and suddenly Scandinavian socialist utopia starts to embrace a little Orwell. How else do you hold the masses (at least the ones who don't look like you) accountable when everything is free, free, free?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That's why progressive don't win elections. Believe me, I am not thrilled about a Governor Stapleton. But I think the odds of it are better than 50/50. Free, free, free everything is not a plan.

And to be clear, Swedish voters might vote for you these days if you were Hitler. All it takes are a few brown people, and suddenly Scandinavian socialist utopia starts to embrace a little Orwell. How else do you hold the masses (at least the ones who don't look like you) accountable when everything is free, free, free?

IDK about a Governor Stapleton. He's also spouting free, free, free via cutting waste, fraud and abuse in gov'mint. As you can attest, CDOT is swimming in money and it's only due to employee incompetence that I-70 hasn't been expanded through the mountains. Plus, he's an east coast carpertbagger.

Oh, and he also has a bedsheet hanging in his closet.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Meliorem

The idea is that you plan and build with the bicyclist/pedestrian (transit) in mind in the city, effectively making the usage of vehicles in that specific area an annoyance and just as important, slower.

This is where I think the separation of transit / cyclists / peds comes in; even though peds are more on the transit side of things. Bicyclist and ped networks are great but most people (outside of 5%, or 3% in Denver) are not going to buy that a ped / bike network is a solid 'transit' system. Really, we need to stop saying it's a transit system, because it's really just another SOV system (bikes and bodies are still single occupancy vehicles )We need trains, BRT, dedicated transit lanes. This is becoming my personal gripe with the residents of Denver. They think bike lanes alone are going to save us all when us commuters really just want something that can whisk us away while carrying our sh*t without having to sweat, freeze, or change at work. Unless we get some real multi-ton steel machines on the streets, we are going to go nowhere in this city as far as transit stands.

I am lucky to spend a crap ton of money to live right by the Alameda Station. It's great and it saves some car trips. The dedicated lanes on Broadway / Lincoln are, for the most part, working. Broadway can still use some work but it's getting there. We need more Broadway / Lincoln's, not more 15th Street Bike lanes while buses, the real movers of people, get stuck in gridlock traffic with a barely used bike lane next to them.

For the record, I'm all for peds and bikes, but for heaven's sake, we need real transit.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

IDK about a Governor Stapleton. He's also spouting free, free, free via cutting waste, fraud and abuse in gov'mint.

This is no more than a warmed over 'talking points' strategy that is as old as politics. But in some years it sells like hotcakes. I have no feel for what will sell best this year?

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And to be clear, Swedish voters might vote for you these days if you were Hitler. All it takes are a few brown people, and suddenly Scandinavian socialist utopia starts to embrace a little Orwell. How else do you hold the masses (at least the ones who don't look like you) accountable when everything is free, free, free?

Interesting observation; I've read about the growing 'right' in Sweden.

With respect to Stapleton, I'm gonna assume that most down-ballot (Republican) candidates desperately want the Chamber-proposed transportation tax increase to pass. It's the red areas of the state that need this the most. That 40% distributed to local jurisdictions allows people of all stripes to envision how they would prefer to spend that money.

Originally Posted by RyanD

For the record, I'm all for peds and bikes, but for heaven's sake, we need real transit.

Very well said; great post!

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I'm gonna assume that most down-ballot (Republican) candidates desperately want the Chamber-proposed transportation tax increase to pass. It's the red areas of the state that need this the most. That 40% distributed to local jurisdictions allows people of all stripes to envision how they would prefer to spend that money.

I think this is probably correct. But there is a not insignificant portion of people, more Republicans, but not just Republicans, who buy into what the competing ballot initiative is selling. Namely, “we already pay for roads,” and we don’t need to increase taxes to build these same projects now.

This will really test how smart Colorado voters are. Should we bond only, or should we bond and increase taxes to pay for the bonds. Raiding maintenance budgets has been a fan favorite for, well, forever, so I’m not sure I’m quite ready to bet against the new-tax-free measure.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I think this is probably correct. But there is a not insignificant portion of people, more Republicans, but not just Republicans, who buy into what the competing ballot initiative is selling. Namely, “we already pay for roads,” and we don’t need to increase taxes to build these same projects now.

This will really test how smart Colorado voters are. Should we bond only, or should we bond and increase taxes to pay for the bonds. Raiding maintenance budgets has been a fan favorite for, well, forever, so I’m not sure I’m quite ready to bet against the new-tax-free measure.

I'm not. Caldera isn't stupid (well, not politically) and I can see this selling among the "all government spending is massively wasteful" crowd.

However, if it does, I want to sponsor a bill to gut funding for special needs education and hit this asshole where it hurts- his special needs daughter. Critics of government spending shouldn't make use of public perks when they advocate for a bare-bones government structure.

Because I'm an asshole.

[Meliorem]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That's why progressive don't win elections. Believe me, I am not thrilled about a Governor Stapleton. But I think the odds of it are better than 50/50. Free, free, free everything is not a plan.

And to be clear, Swedish voters might vote for you these days if you were Hitler. All it takes are a few brown people, and suddenly Scandinavian socialist utopia starts to embrace a little Orwell. How else do you hold the masses (at least the ones who don't look like you) accountable when everything is free, free, free?

There are no socialist countries in Scandinavia.

Originally Posted by RyanD

This is where I think the separation of transit / cyclists / peds comes in; even though peds are more on the transit side of things. Bicyclist and ped networks are great but most people (outside of 5%, or 3% in Denver) are not going to buy that a ped / bike network is a solid 'transit' system. Really, we need to stop saying it's a transit system, because it's really just another SOV system (bikes and bodies are still single occupancy vehicles )We need trains, BRT, dedicated transit lanes. This is becoming my personal gripe with the residents of Denver. They think bike lanes alone are going to save us all when us commuters really just want something that can whisk us away while carrying our sh*t without having to sweat, freeze, or change at work. Unless we get some real multi-ton steel machines on the streets, we are going to go nowhere in this city as far as transit stands.

I am lucky to spend a crap ton of money to live right by the Alameda Station. It's great and it saves some car trips. The dedicated lanes on Broadway / Lincoln are, for the most part, working. Broadway can still use some work but it's getting there. We need more Broadway / Lincoln's, not more 15th Street Bike lanes while buses, the real movers of people, get stuck in gridlock traffic with a barely used bike lane next to them.

For the record, I'm all for peds and bikes, but for heaven's sake, we need real transit.

A bike network isn't a transit system as far as I'm concerned, Copenhagen and a handful of other cities are the exceptions to the rule, but it's very much an integral part of the solution, as are extensive, city-wide sidewalks. I'm with you on more dedicated transit lanes and trains/lines.. that (almost) goes without saying. I was merely addressing the bike/ped aspect of the equation. My bad if it wasn't clear.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I'm not. Caldera isn't stupid (well, not politically) and I can see this selling among the "all government spending is massively wasteful" crowd.

True, the American Prosperity acolytes have always been among us for which Caldera's initiative of getting something for nothing, actually slashing social programs for transportation is their fix. But I never considered that crowd as attainable 'yes' votes to begin with. It's all the other (more realistic) Republican votes that I'm thinking of.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by Meliorem

There are no socialist countries in Scandinavia.



A bike network isn't a transit system as far as I'm concerned, Copenhagen and a handful of other cities are the exceptions to the rule, but it's very much an integral part of the solution, as are extensive, city-wide sidewalks. I'm with you on more dedicated transit lanes and trains/lines.. that (almost) goes without saying. I was merely addressing the bike/ped aspect of the equation. My bad if it wasn't clear.

I like how some people panic at the thought of spending money of protected bike lines (oh heavens; how will we pay for it) when in reality the expense is minimal compared to other budget items. For the equivalent price of 1 mile of highway; we could have a world class bike system that supplements other forms of transit. And what is the annual expense in keeping up a bike network? Oh.. practically zero? I understand the need of keeping budgets in line, but there are literally hundreds of line items ahead of this that would be bigger concerns.