DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

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.

Very well stated. While I substantially agree it gets complicated; maybe I'll come back with specific examples.

And I'd agree that depending on context and perspective 'liberal nannyism' could be viewed differently.

The elephant in the room is zoning I suppose. According to Wikipedia

The primary purpose of zoning is to segregate uses that are thought to be incompatible. In practice, zoning also is used to prevent new development from interfering with existing uses and/or to preserve the "character" of a community. However, it has not always been an effective method for achieving this goal

A more generic definition would go like: The purpose of zoning is “to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, to protect and conserve the value of buildings, and encourage the most appropriate use of the land.”

The type of nannyism that makes my skin crawl goes something like this: "We're going to rewrite all the rules because we're smarter and know what is best for everybody else."

[TakeFive]

Every city has it's own history; it's own uniqueness, it's own DNA.

A city is defined by its neighborhoods; they make up it's DNA. There's a long history to understanding any city's evolution.

The tapestry and texture of a city comes from its neighborhoods. They provide substance, character and personality. They are a treasure trove of what makes a city unique.

I love diversity, all kinds of diversity. I also respect those who care about and are invested in their community and their neighborhoods.

When I was young, dumb and poor I found my first home in a very modest neighborhood. As I got to know my neighbors next door and down the block I found the nicest and most interesting people.

I don't care to judge either the people who live in less desirable neighborhoods nor the people who are able to afford living in upscale or high end neighborhoods. I trust that people can find their own way and determine for themselves where best to live, rich or poor.

Just because people live in a desirable neighborhood is not sufficient reason to target them for any perceived sins of affordability, especially when there's still plenty of options available.

[TakeFive]

It's important to understand that 'affordability' isn't just a problem for downtown Denver and its adjacent neighborhoods. It's a metro-wide problem and goes to causes beyond the scope of this specific topic but it is worth pointing out.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

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.

I can move beyond platitudes to specific examples which aren't so different from what you suggest.

With respect to Virginia Vale I have previously suggested that the Leetsdale corridor is ripe for more density and more affordability, especially on the south side. With respect to Virginia Village the area closest to Colorado Blvd would be ideal. Why not upzone to say 8 stories the land between Colorado Blvd and Dahlia St?

Closer to downtown, consider the DUS neighborhood. It was once a dead zone of industrial uses and waste. It was a brown field. Look at it now. There's so much land still available in RiNo and Sun Valley. I've also previously conceded all the land between Federal and I-25 which goes up to and includes Sunnyside. In these neighborhoods alone there's easily two decades of redevelopment potential to accommodate both higher density and more affordable housing. Why are we panicking?

Btw, why can't we get more affordable housing and density at Central Park Station which is where TOD belongs.

I've also conceded the area around Sloan Lake. Significant density could be allowed between Colfax and maybe 19th/20th Ave with perhaps stepped down density up to say 26th maybe even 29th avenue.

With respect to Wash Park change along/closer to Broadway and Speer make lots of sense. In fact two 30-story towers were recently completed and two more nice projects are currently under construction south of Speer.

There also opportunity east and NE of downtown we haven't even broached.

Partly the problem comes around to what developers are interested in developing. But that also goes to why zoning that is protective is a good thing not a bad thing. There's simply no need yet to target those who live in stable and desirable neighborhoods. We can revisit that option after a couple of more decades goes by.

[mhays]

In other words, I've got mine, screw the rest of you. All too common among people in my age group and older.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

In other words, I've got mine, screw the rest of you. All too common among people in my age group and older.

With enough land available in and around downtown and nearby areas for two to three decades of development, I can't relate to your point. Besides I'll assume that those 'youngsters' who have moved into specific neighborhoods I'm referring to feel the same way as the oldsters and long-timers. Certainly my nephew would. Btw, how much affordable housing are you involved in building? In any case I understand people will have different feelings and opinions.

I'm also glad you stopped by. Congratulations!!

http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/25463584/groundbreaking-held-seattle-nhl-arena

SEATTLE -- Wednesday's celebration outside the building that Seattle's new NHL team will eventually call home came with all the formality of a groundbreaking event, complete with the principals taking turns giving remarks and ceremonially shoveling dirt.

By the time the entirety of all the projects and investments in the franchise is realized with the team's first game -- arena, expansion fee, practice facility and other costs -- bringing the franchise to Seattle could end up running in the neighborhood of $2 billion.

That's a lot of money. Hockey is a great sport and the Colorado Avalanche fans here in Denver are a rowdy, devoted group.

[mhays]

Cities need more than just big houses and apartments. They need the missing middle, and it's extremely helpful on many levels to have a lot of those be centralized. Denver, Seattle, and Minneapolis are three cities who need this...Denver and Seattle most of all due to population growth pressures.

[CastleScott]

^ Well said mhays.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Cities need more than just big houses and apartments. They need the missing middle, and it's extremely helpful on many levels to have a lot of those be centralized. Denver, Seattle, and Minneapolis are three cities who need this...Denver and Seattle most of all due to population growth pressures.

I'm not sure how "extremely helpful" they are but I have nothing against building middle density housing. If adding middle density variety to higher density is desirable that's fine. There has in fact been a number of these built in recent years. As I understand it near Sloan Lake, in Jefferson Park, LoHi, and West City Park are examples. They won't take you to the promised land of affordability. But if people want to prioritize mid-market homes I easily defined enough land area and you could add Athmar Park, West City Park and Uptown to areas where such housing could be added and in many cases the current zoning may already allow for such - but I'm not an expert on zoning.

I'm not sure where "centralized" stops but Denver doesn't really have a lot of "big houses" and they're not the focus of neighborhoods I was referring to. There's the historical few scattered around and of course bigger homes in Cherry Creek area and nearby the Denver Country Club.

There's been a number of scrape offs replaced by McMansions nearer to Wash Park but they are not really prevalent that I'm aware of. Bigger homes that exist along and in the area of east 6th avenue I wouldn't consider central Denver; they're more attached to the Hilltop area.

Btw, since downtown Denver is relatively close to its western border of Sheridan Blvd, it's worth noting that mid-market housing is being built west of Sheridan as well.

[twister244]

On a different note, we now have an idea of the different sites that were pitched for HQ2:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/12/06/denver-amazon-hq2-proposed-sites/

No huge surprises here. RiNo, River Mile, etc.

I'm not upset Amazon passed up Denver, but I was hoping for some of those last minute high profile mentions that other cities got. For example, Amazon made a second visit to Chicago, among a couple other cities. It would have been nice to see that as well.

But..... in the end, Denver still has a TON going for it.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

But if people want to prioritize mid-market homes I easily defined enough land area and you could add Athmar Park, West City Park and Uptown to areas where such housing could be added and in many cases the current zoning may already allow for such - but I'm not an expert on zoning.

I'm not sure where "centralized" stops but Denver doesn't really have a lot of "big houses" and they're not the focus of neighborhoods I was referring to. There's the historical few scattered around and of course bigger homes in Cherry Creek area and nearby the Denver Country Club.

There's been a number of scrape offs replaced by McMansions nearer to Wash Park but they are not really prevalent that I'm aware of. Bigger homes that exist along and in the area of east 6th avenue I wouldn't consider central Denver; they're more attached to the Hilltop area.

Wrong again. Most of these neighborhood do not allow anything of the sort. My own neighborhood - University - I am not even allowed to build a duplex. On large lots with crappy small houses and decent transit access.

As for prevalence. Wash Park? Come on, your understanding of Denver is two decades behind. My own block is roughly 1/3 scraped now with houses that are absolutely “bigger homes.” (Replacing $350k houses with $850k houses is generally the math.) I’ll be doing that myself. I want to include an ADU over the garage. But I’m not allowed. I put in a rezoning application, but the gentle advice from City planning staff was “this is going to cost you a lot of time and money and you won’t get it, so don’t bother.”

The zoning here is slowly but surely transforming an attainable lower middle class Denver neighborhood into a place for the wealthy. What is it you think we are protecting other than my land values? Admittedly, I’m going to get rich, which is lovely. But if I had bought in two years later, I would’ve missed the window - I couldn’t afford my own house now.

So I ask - how is my proposed duplex or proposed ADU hurting anybody? Of course the answers are traffic and parking. But why is maintaining zoning to protect against “traffic and parking” better public policy than zoning that protects against “this previously affordable neighborhood is suddenly unattainable.” The obvious and only answer is - you are weighing the needs of the current residents over the needs of tomorrow’s potential residents.

And telling those future residents to go live along Leetsdale is a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 response. They don’t want to live along Leetsdale, any more than I would. They want to live right here. And people like you won’t let me build for them. So let’s call that what it is - it’s selfish greed.

p.s. had Amendment 74 passed, jokes aside, my actual plan was to lob in a rezoning request for four units. Absolutely market supportable and absolutely illegal.

It’s truly rich that you would argue what I want to do is “nannyism.” But what you’re doing - protecting the unfortunate souls already living in a desirable neighborhood from having to bear the cross of housing affordability - which might otherwise suggest they should welcome a new neighbor or two... that’s just smart policy? Unreal.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The type of nannyism that makes my skin crawl goes something like this: "We're going to rewrite all the rules because we're smarter and know what is best for everybody else."

You pull this statement straight out of a Trump tweet? Whining about life being unfair for the white and wealthy? Check. Dog whistle terminology referring to liberals in a derogatory manner? Check. Opposing changing the rules, as long as they are only the rules I agree with? Check.

You realize humans wrote those rules? Zoning isn’t the Second Amendment for crying out loud, it’s not inviolable. Hell, property owners don’t have *any* legal right to their current zoning.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You pull this statement straight out of a Trump tweet? Whining about life being unfair for the white and wealthy? Check. Dog whistle terminology referring to liberals in a derogatory manner? Check. Opposing changing the rules, as long as they are only the rules I agree with? Check.

You realize humans wrote those rules? Zoning isn’t the Second Amendment for crying out loud, it’s not inviolable. Hell, property owners don’t have *any* legal right to their current zoning.

In the election of 2010, Arizona was totally in the control of conservatives and I'm not speaking of business conservatives I'm thinking of social and totally looney-tune conservatives. This group went on to pass some of the craziest stuff I've ever witnessed. Anti-gay, anti-immigrant, so-called 'religious liberty' 🞵🞵🞵🞵. They set the state back 5 years as Arizona became the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 of late-night talk show jokes. Why did they do this? Simply because they could. Whether right or left absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I view myself as close to the dead of center. That puts me somewhere between NIMBY-ism and rewriting all the rules because we think it would be a dandy idea.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Wrong again. Most of these neighborhood do not allow anything of the sort. My own neighborhood - University - I am not even allowed to build a duplex. On large lots with crappy small houses and decent transit access.

I have a long-time friend who lives in University Park. If you are in University I'll guess you're east of So Downing?

It's fair to say I'm not an encyclopedia of Denver zoning nor up-to-date about what has specifically happened in every neighborhood.

But you add a whole new wrinkle to what I was discussing. I have great empathy towards preserving the historical stock and character of some neighborhoods for example Wash Park, West Highlands (say west of Federal and maybe north of 26th ave) and Congress Park. And that's not to say there can't be pockets of exception but speaking generally...

I was somewhat aware but certainly not up-to-date on neighborhoods to the south. That's a different issue. That's simply part of a long-time preferred area of Denver. I can't stop people from doing what they want if allowed and I wouldn't begin to dictate what they should or shouldn't do within already existing codes.

It wasn't that long ago that Denver was reasonably affordable. I take no responsibility for what has happened since I left. But you're there and if you wish to get your neighbors together and upzone your own hood, be my guest.

[Highrize]

Leetsdale, Leetsdale, Leetsdale, Phoenix, Phoenix, Phoenix. Pretty much half the posts in here. It’s strange that the most prolific poster here is stuck posting about the same things over and over again.

I come for the development news but I stay for the Take5 drama

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Is one able to upload pictures from Google Drive onto this forum? I enabled link sharing but I haven't had success posting a picture of the Confluence and 1144 from last night.

[Denvergotback]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Is one able to upload pictures from Google Drive onto this forum? I enabled link sharing but I haven't had success posting a picture of the Confluence and 1144 from last night.

I’m not sure about google drive, but what I did is create a Flickr account and just posted a link to the pictures

I can’t ever figure out how to post pictures directly to this site

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Highrize

Leetsdale, Leetsdale, Leetsdale, Phoenix, Phoenix, Phoenix. Pretty much half the posts in here. It’s strange that the most prolific poster here is stuck posting about the same things over and over again.

I come for the development news but I stay for the Take5 drama

Welcome to the posting side of the forum. Sorry I frustrate you. It seems as though affordability, NIMBYism and zoning are Hot Topics that everyone has an opinion about. I typically don't start the topic but yes I do enjoy expressing my views.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

I’m not sure about google drive, but what I did is create a Flickr account and just posted a link to the pictures

I can’t ever figure out how to post pictures directly to this site

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_post_images

[Highrize]

Now to add something to the discussion since I have a frame of reference. I live in East Wash Park in a 1927 built Tudor. There is no housing stock here in need of preservation here, these are all Tudors and Bungalows. My house was bought in the 70's for less than 100K, it's now worth over 800K. Nobody in their right minds would pay 800K for this house and that is why I'm not upset that houses on my street get scrapped for a McMansion. I don't actually like the term McMansion in this capacity, I view them as modern versions of the Classic Denver Square you see in Cap Hill.

At the end of the day land value is going to determine the type of building a site gets. When you pay 800K for a lot in Wash park you aren't wanting 1200 sq ft. You are going to build something that is worth your investment and it's going to be big.

As for the single family homes vs up-zoning. There are many small pockets of multi-family homes in East Wash Park, and many don't even show up on the city's online zoning maps. Small converted garages, modest apartments, small duplexes and 4 plexes and 8 plexes. They fit in the neighborhood just fine. The only thing they would really impact if more were allowed would be street parking, and while the large amounts of on-street parking in my neighborhood is a huge plus it's certainly not a rite and we would be just fine if ADU's or multi family expanded here.

I think the slot homes in Sloan's Lake freaked people out because they weren't used to it, and I'll admit it's a shame that some of them ignore the street and become little compounds but it's only strange because there are so few of them. In 20 years when more of the housing stock turns over and multi family becomes the norm and not the outlier people will be criticizing the Single family homes for looking out of place.

Yes there are plenty of brownfield and greenfield sites around and in Denver on former industrial or railroad sites. Yes those should be developed and the best urban planning of the day should apply to them so that they can be developed smartly and diversely. but why would you want to point all development there? Develop everywhere at once and let it grow organically.