DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Donna Bryson/Denverite has a nice piece about The Speer Boulevard corridor.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I think the whole "Denverization" debate (i.e., gentrification) is going to be a huge driver of the Mayoral election. At least some of candidates running are running against "gentrification" and the supposed "pro-business" attitude of the mayor and city council.

The Mayor Hancock has a yuge advantage and partly because he's been doing a lot for affordable housing. It's one thing to talk about it; it's another to find money to get it done - which he has.

Btw Candidate Z, would you prefer spending $'s on housing, multimodal transportation or healthcare and education? And since we can't afford to do it all which would you say is unimportant? (my kind of question)

[sphinx88844]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

No doubt? You're probably right that there's no doubt among the uneducated masses that "gentrification" is the cause of high prices, when gentrification is really a result of high demand and constricted housing supply. So, what's the solution to gentrification, then? Reinforce the segragationist policies that resulted in poor mono-racial neighborhoods in the first place? No thanks. Never mind that the best solution to gentrification is not scraping a sfh in Curtis Park and replacing it with a modern boxy sfh that house a smaller and richer family, but replacing it with higher density housing.

- you couldn't be more correct - supply and demand! Nice things like a desirable city with jobs, shopping, restaurants, services, etc. is going to cost more than an area lacking these things - what would everyone prefer an urban wasteland?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Donna Bryson/Denverite has a nice piece about The Speer Boulevard corridor.



The Mayor Hancock has a yuge advantage and partly because he's been doing a lot for affordable housing. It's one thing to talk about it; it's another to find money to get it done - which he has.

Btw Candidate Z, would you prefer spending $'s on housing, multimodal transportation or healthcare and education? And since we can't afford to do it all which would you say is unimportant? (my kind of question)

All three- plus Candidate Z will impose development restrictions that will preserve neighborhood character by allowing residents an increased say on how their neighborhoods should develop (i.e. keeping single family homes) and slowing down growth by "greedy, evil developer". Oh, and will introduce reverse redlining to ensure that ethnic neighborhoods remain such.

Denver is well and truly f**cked given what a lot of these mayoral and council candidates are proposing. But, on the bright side, my home value will continue to increase at an insane rate in Stapleton (or whatever the SJW's end up getting it renamed to) as Denver becomes closer to mimicking SF.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

No doubt? You're probably right that there's no doubt among the uneducated masses that "gentrification" is the cause of high prices, when gentrification is really a result of high demand and constricted housing supply. So, what's the solution to gentrification, then? Reinforce the segragationist policies that resulted in poor mono-racial neighborhoods in the first place? No thanks. Never mind that the best solution to gentrification is not scraping a sfh in Curtis Park and replacing it with a modern boxy sfh that house a smaller and richer family, but replacing it with higher density housing.

I agree with you, but I'd bet money on an "anti-gentrification" candidate winning the mayorship. Identity politics is what gets voters' attention, not economic fundamentals. Most agree with the sentiment Cherry Creek mentioned, that development is to blame for reduced affordability. Unfortunately the policies these candidates (eg Calderon and Tate) will support are actually going to intensify the ills associated with gentrification.

I think Jamie Giellis is a strong candidate who seems YIMBY, however based on her resume, she is going to be perceived as the face of gentrification and the "over development" of Denver.

[corey]

I don’t have a problem with gentrification either, but I do lament when neighborhoods become so overly gentrified that they are no longer signs of the past. Highlands has pretty much lost its Little Italy identity. I worry that Five Points will loose it’s African American identity and Santa Fe will loose it’s Hispanic identity. I guess it is just the evolution of the city, but I hate to see every neighborhood homogenized in character. But it is better that neighborhoods get investment and deteriorated buildings are renovated or replaced than languish in disrepair.

[CastleScott]

^ All this is quite funny and its interesting but here in Sacramento some folks believed that Denver was populated by young males that loved getting stoned and boozing it up-I use to hear this at work a lot..

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Denver is well and truly f**cked given what a lot of these mayoral and council candidates are proposing. But, on the bright side, my home value will continue to increase at an insane rate in Stapleton (or whatever the SJW's end up getting it renamed to) as Denver becomes closer to mimicking SF.

I intend to do my part by sending in my 10 mail-in ballots.

With respect to the Bay Area, hold your horses.
3 charts suggest housing ‘bubble trouble’ with a tech meltdown ‘yet to come’

How many neighborhoods, really, do their residents feel any sense of panic. I mean density is occurring where it should - in and around downtown. I suspect most voters will choose to stick with Hancock, but I could be wrong.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

No doubt? You're probably right that there's no doubt among the uneducated masses that "gentrification" is the cause of high prices, when gentrification is really a result of high demand and constricted housing supply. So, what's the solution to gentrification, then? Reinforce the segragationist policies that resulted in poor mono-racial neighborhoods in the first place? No thanks. Never mind that the best solution to gentrification is not scraping a sfh in Curtis Park and replacing it with a modern boxy sfh that house a smaller and richer family, but replacing it with higher density housing.

To paraphrase The Princess' Bride, I don't think the word you are using means what you think it means.

gentrification noun
gen·​tri·​fi·​ca·​tion | \ˌjen-trə-fə-ˈkā-shən

: the process of repairing and rebuilding homes and businesses in a deteriorating area (such as an urban neighborhood) accompanied by an influx of middle-class or affluent people and that often results in the displacement of earlier, usually poorer residents

So yea, there's "no doubt" that "gentrification" led to higher prices in the neighborhoods I mentioned.

And no, higher demand and constricted housing did not "cause" gentrification. LoL. In fact, the opposite is true. Relatively low demand, low prices, and easily available housing is what started the gentrification process in the first place.

So, what's the solution to gentrification, then?

Who said it needs a solution? I never said it was problem. I simply noted the indisputable link between gentrification (see definition above) and rising home prices and rental rates, and the indisputable fact that persons without sufficient income can't pay the higher prices. So it's not irrational for a low income person who lived in neighborhood to be upset about the fact they can no longer afford to live in that neighborhood and to wish that gentrification never happened.

[twister244]

Yeah.... it will be pretty sad if Denver elects a NIMBY-like mayor that starts to reign in development......

Then we will see real pain when it comes to rent/housing prices. I would hate to see that as I have always applauded Denver to the magnitude of construction keeping up with demand since I moved here in 2015. But.... if any of that is restricted, we will become just like Boulder..... which I don't want.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

No doubt? You're probably right that there's no doubt among the uneducated masses that "gentrification" is the cause of high prices, when gentrification is really a result of high demand and constricted housing supply. So, what's the solution to gentrification, then? Reinforce the segragationist policies that resulted in poor mono-racial neighborhoods in the first place? No thanks. Never mind that the best solution to gentrification is not scraping a sfh in Curtis Park and replacing it with a modern boxy sfh that house a smaller and richer family, but replacing it with higher density housing.

Curtis Park does have some historically significant housing stock. But my best recall is that there's also a significant mish-mash of newer multi-story buildings, vacant lots/properties and crummy, if affordable stuff.

It's only been a few years since DHA using Hope VI funds and other funding built some nice mixed-income, sustainable housing in the area. I'd think there's still plenty of opportunity to build 'plain Jane' 4 to 6-story condo buildings which is what I'd recommend.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Who said it needs a solution? I never said it was problem.

That's Life;

When has anybody succeeded in turning the clock back to the 'good ole days'?

But there's boatloads of opportunity; consider the Elyria Swansea neighborhood. Denver could do some 'protective' zoning similar to what was accomplished in the Mariposa redevelopment in La Alma/Lincoln Park. There's gobs of land in the 38th and Blake area being promoted for more affordable housing. Plus, there has been a good amount of affordable housing already built with more coming.

At the risk of repeating myself, in addition to the above, there's Sunnyside, Sun Valley, the River Mile still to come which will emphasize affordable and more affordable housing.

We've only barely scratched the surface of TOD which also should add affordable and more affordable housing. Any additional less-expensive housing added will help alleviate the problem and even lessen the demand in and around downtown inself.

Patience is a virtue I've been told.

[CherryCreek]

Interesting development in the potential re-development of the old Sears building in Cherry Creek.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/12/06/cherry-creek-north-redevelopment-whole-foods/


I have to wonder whether announcements of MAJOR re-developments in the Cherry Creek area may coming soon:

OliverMcMillan filed redevelopment plans with the city in June 2017. Those preliminary documents called for demolition of the Whole Foods, the parking structure and the former Sears store on the property. In their place would rise six buildings atop a network of underground parking. That construction would create 174,105 square feet of retail space and 527 residential units between Clayton and Josephine.

In addition to this mega-redevelopment, I have a hard time believing that Taubman will sit too long on the now largely vacant/underutilized, west side of the Cherry Creek Mall property. That area must be 2x as large (or more) of the Sears/Whole Foods area.

With the Container Store and Bed and Bath gone, will be interesting to see what's in the offing. The rumors previously included a multi-use residential/office/retail/hotel, including Denver's second Four Seasons.

The pending recession may put a kabosh on things for another year or two.

[Cirrus]

Gentrification is so misunderstood by most of the people who try to fight it.

The mechanism of gentrification isn’t expensive new development, it’s zoning that stops development from happening in the most high-demand areas, forcing it spread to marginal areas instead. The battleground of gentrification is therefore not the gentrifying neighborhood itself; it’s the wealthy neighborhood where demand is high, but resident NIMBYs and their restrictive zoning prevent growth.

If you fight gentrification by trying to prevent development in neighborhoods where gentrification is happening now, you have already lost. Stopping that development only succeeds in guaranteeing that instead of buying new housing in the gentrifying neighborhood, affluent buyers will take over the existing housing as it turns over.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The mechanism of gentrification isn’t expensive new development, it’s zoning that stops development from happening in the most high-demand areas, forcing it spread to marginal areas instead. The battleground of gentrification is therefore not the gentrifying neighborhood itself; it’s the wealthy neighborhood where demand is high, but resident NIMBYs and their restrictive zoning prevent growth.

Nonsense; very misguided theory based on tunnel vision that in a vacuum sounds logical. The hypocrisy of liberal nannyism boggles the mind.

For starters CherryCreek had the best post on the topic I've read.

Those neighborhoods you would remake/destroy once served as anchors of stability when downtown wasn't so appealing. How quickly we forget the contributions of those who came before; how easily we propose to throw them out like so much dirty bathwater.

At the risk of repeating, repeating myself there is no shortage of area that can accomodate more density and more affordable housing. Is there room for some zoning changes? Sure but be very careful what you ask for as the unintended consequences could be disastrous.

[Cirrus]

I like how "letting the market build where the market wants" is "liberal nannyism," but "there's plenty of land for the government to tell developers where they're allowed to build" is "safe from unintended consequences."

Yeah this is why I'm not arguing with you anymore. Have a nice day.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Gentrification is so misunderstood by most of the people who try to fight it.

The mechanism of gentrification isn’t expensive new development, it’s zoning that stops development from happening in the most high-demand areas, forcing it spread to marginal areas instead. The battleground of gentrification is therefore not the gentrifying neighborhood itself; it’s the wealthy neighborhood where demand is high, but resident NIMBYs and their restrictive zoning prevent growth.

If you fight gentrification by trying to prevent development in neighborhoods where gentrification is happening now, you have already lost. Stopping that development only succeeds in guaranteeing that instead of buying new housing in the gentrifying neighborhood, affluent buyers will take over the existing housing as it turns over.

I've been trying to shout this from every rooftop I can - and tying it to more than just gentrification, but also rising prices in all neighborhoods. I wish I could say that I convinced people to allow aggressive densification of West Highland and Cherry Creek... I think it would help to have hard data backing this up.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Nonsense; very misguided theory based on tunnel vision that in a vacuum sounds logical. The hypocrisy of liberal nannyism boggles the mind.

For starters CherryCreek had the best post on the topic I've read.

Those neighborhoods you would remake/destroy once served as anchors of stability when downtown wasn't so appealing. How quickly we forget the contributions of those who came before; how easily we propose to throw them out like so much dirty bathwater.

Your position is liberal nannyism at it's finest- that you don't recognize so is sweetly ironic. These are appealing neighborhoods both to long-time residents and newcomers and the market should determine what kind of natural evolutionary changes (constrained by self-imposed regulations) are needed to occur to value the contributions of the past with accommodating new growth. I for one do not think that merely blanketing neighborhoods with single family home designations is the solution. Wash Park certainly could use a swath of duplexes, quadplexes, rows, and even *gasp* some condominuims. So could Virginia Vale. This doesn't remake/destroy a neighborhood- it evolves it as organically as our system will allow.

At the risk of repeating, repeating myself there is no shortage of area that can accomodate more density and more affordable housing. Is there room for some zoning changes? Sure but be very careful what you ask for as the unintended consequences could be disastrous.

So don't do anything anywhere because something might happen that you didn't expect? You're trending towards statism, my friend.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Does anyone have any recommendations for where I can catch a good picture of the Confluence Tower and 1144 now that they both have their lights on?

[CONative]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Does anyone have any recommendations for where I can catch a good picture of the Confluence Tower and 1144 now that they both have their lights on?

Zuni Street -- just south of Speer Street.

Right about here...
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7551264,-105.0155093,19.55z

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I like how "letting the market build where the market wants" is "liberal nannyism," but "there's plenty of land for the government to tell developers where they're allowed to build" is "safe from unintended consequences."

I had the same take... it reminds me of the people who inherently propose all things “socialism”, but “don’t touch my Medicare”.

In general; I think a lot of people take political positions that would seems to abide by their world view, until the actual implementation occurs. Both sides, actually..