DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by fleury

Just below that section she talks about focusing density in former industrial areas and along major transportation routes, then goes into talking about design requirements city wide (think Lodo). She is also anti airport city (THANK GOD) and says that development should be focused downtown and not out on the plains creating additional sprawl and strain on our resources.

So, meeting the demand for the 20K to 30K net deficit in housing units the city has will be met by a) limiting density to (mostly) undesirable areas and b) slowing development by instituting protracted design review? Yep. That will work.

Let's also note that the person whose hand is up Jaime's ass pulling the puppet strings, one Kyle Zeppelin, has stated repeatedly that we shouldn't ruin our verdant tree-lined streets in stable neighborhoods with density and change. Rather that change should go elsewhere, preferably far away.

If this is not NIMBYism, IDK what is.

Unless we are pushing for the city to go all in on development and divert/create additional funding for housing where the city starts using public land to build vast tracts of housing, you're not going to get anywhere close to closing the gap. Rather the deficit is only going to worsen and Denver's going to really, really, really start to resemble Boulder and the goodness that city has.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

In other news, micro-apartments break ground in Cherry Creek. https://crej.com/news/pando-holdings-gh-phipps-break-ground-on-135-adams-project/ If only we can get projects ten times this size.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

In other news, micro-apartments break ground in Cherry Creek. https://crej.com/news/pando-holdings-gh-phipps-break-ground-on-135-adams-project/ If only we can get projects ten times this size.

This one was a nice surprise to me. Great location, efficient use of a property. Taking a stab at "affordable." I bet these go quick. You are right, build another 20 projects just like it.

[wong21fr]

Double Post.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

This one was a nice surprise to me. Great location, efficient use of a property. Taking a stab at "affordable." I bet these go quick. You are right, build another 20 projects just like it.

Hell no. Build a hundred of these at least. 3,700 units of attainable housing would be a nice dent in the deficit.

[fleury]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

So, meeting the demand for the 20K to 30K net deficit in housing units the city has will be met by a) limiting density to (mostly) undesirable areas and b) slowing development by instituting protracted design review? Yep. That will work.

Let's also note that the person whose hand is up Jaime's ass pulling the puppet strings, one Kyle Zeppelin, has stated repeatedly that we shouldn't ruin our verdant tree-lined streets in stable neighborhoods with density and change. Rather that change should go elsewhere, preferably far away.

If this is not NIMBYism, IDK what is.

Unless we are pushing for the city to go all in on development and divert/create additional funding for housing where the city starts using public land to build vast tracts of housing, you're not going to get anywhere close to closing the gap. Rather the deficit is only going to worsen and Denver's going to really, really, really start to resemble Boulder and the goodness that city has.

I dunno. I personally think we should respect our tree lined streets in stable neighborhoods. Cap hill did some pretty incredible damage to a neighborhood that if was left intact would be one of the most beautiful in the nation. Not all development is good development...

And I believe that the industrial areas she's referring to are immediately adjacent to downtown. They aren't undesirable at all...could just be used in a better way for our growing city. Brighton blvd was one of those areas just 8 years ago if that. Now its a thriving neighborhood with tons of residents restaurants and shops. (not that it wasn't thriving before, just a different use). Theres a massive swath of industrial land just east of I-25 from Colfax all the way to alameda that would be prime real estate for the influx of new folks to Denver. Why constantly push outwards? That's archaic thinking.

On top of all that Denver absolutely needs a design review for all new buildings downtown. Seattle has it, its done a world of good. Its honestly shocking to hear a denverite say otherwise. You can't deny the horrible quality of building stock we've seen in the past few years.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by fleury

On top of all that Denver absolutely needs a design review for all new buildings downtown. Seattle has it, its done a world of good. Its honestly shocking to hear a denverite say otherwise. You can't deny the horrible quality of building stock we've seen in the past few years.

We're not just talking downtown. Geillis was pushing for design review throughout the entire city. Downtown I can absolutely get behind and it's something the city is doing now for portions of downtown:


https://www.denvergov.org/content/denver...nt/planning-and-design/downtown-DAB.html


And I believe that it will eventually encompass the remaining portions of downtown in the future.

[twister244]

I have no problem with making sure development isn't cheap. I am think design reviews can be a good thing. But.... I am also in the camp of "upzone the shit out of the city" to allow for way more density to help fill that "gap". Hancock really doesn't seem to care about making development less cheap, but Jamie is anti-development (while taking money from a RiNo developer). Sorry, but I will take the former.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by fleury

I dunno. I personally think we should respect our tree lined streets in stable neighborhoods. Cap hill did some pretty incredible damage to a neighborhood that if was left intact would be one of the most beautiful in the nation. Not all development is good development...

That's an interesting perspective; you make very good points.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Hell no. Build a hundred of these at least. 3,700 units of attainable housing would be a nice dent in the deficit.

I'm not against this kind of infill. In fact one week ago I said this:

I actually like Ken's idea for say 4-6 units that would be an inside hallway style or at least finished across the front. Outside 3-story walk-ups don't have much appeal for me. For sites that might be conducive for 3-story walk-ups, why not just go 5 stories?

And in the case where Zocalo is facing NIMBY resistance for a vacant parking lot:

to create a one-block collection of about 320 homes. Half of those condos and apartments would serve people who aren’t rich, including families of Denver Public Schools students without homes.

is cray, cray.

Neither am I against more of these infill examples scattered around in appropriate place but the tendency for builders is to build even higher density or more upscale projects.

But as fleury suggests there's still ample opportunity in existing close-in industrial areas where more affordable-focused housing could be built.

[TakeFive]

Quick review - last two weeks

We've discussed plans for a 13-story and a 17-story apartment projects with both designated affordable units and more affordable market rate units. We've learned of 700 new units in Elyria-Swansea neighborhood with both designated affordable and presumably more affordable market rate housing. We also seen the rendering for Tessler's ~650 units of likely mid-market condos and apartments.

What's next, Sun Valley?
The point being given time we may find that a variety of demand is indeed being met. Ofc, you could build thousands and thousands of units renting for half of today's market and they'd all rent out in a nano-second but chances are that's not realistic... unless or until BG918 & CherryCreek's next Great Depression arrives. Pray for Rain and Great Recessions.

[Sam Hill]

I'm not sure how NIMBY Geillis actually is. She's been all over the map (yet certainly more NIMBY than Hancock). It depends on who her audience is. I get the sense she's acting more NIMBY than she actually is, to get votes.

I have to say, during the debate I watched, she was not well-spoken at all -- to the extent it was hard to watch. And every one of her answers was vague. I remember watching and thinking, 'How did this candidate make the cut?' (Several other candidates didn't apparently.) I was shocked when she came in second in the election. I had no idea she was ever a serious contender.

On a side note, I think Hancock's new attack ad might backfire on him. It basically calls her a bigot and attempts to liken her to Trump, but it comes off as cynical and desperate. Negative ads tend to be effective -- whether or not they should be -- but I suspect the majority of Denver voters will see right through this one and collectively furrow their brows in disappointment in Hancock.

[Sam Hill]

In District 10 news, I just received a piece of junk-mail in support of Wayne New's re-election. It attacks Chris Hinds for favoring "higher levels of density in neighborhoods" (among other things), and says Wayne New will "protect neighborhood character."

I voted for Hinds in the first election because I couldn't help myself. He's a true urbanist. I just loved his answers to the questions he was asked by YIMBY Denver. My gut said not to throw away my vote and go with the status quo in case the rent-control advocate (Key), or the "give neighborhoods a voice" guy (Smith) wins. (I wish I had some polls to work with.) I'm glad I went with my heart.

(In fairness to Tony Smith, he's not a NIMBY; some of his ideas just scared me a bit because they would give NIMBY's a louder voice.)

[The Dirt]

Chris Hinds is a treasure. He lives in my building and I run into him often. He was genuinely upset by Wayne New going negative and spouting a bunch of false nonsense about Chris. The thing is, Chris has a good chance of winning.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

In District 10 news, I just received a piece of junk-mail in support of Wayne New's re-election. It attacks Chris Hinds for favoring "higher levels of density in neighborhoods" (among other things), and says Wayne New will "protect neighborhood character."

I voted for Hinds in the first election because I couldn't help myself. He's a true urbanist. I just loved his answers to the questions he was asked by YIMBY Denver. My gut said not to throw away my vote and go with the status quo in case the rent-control advocate (Key), or the "give neighborhoods a voice" guy (Smith) wins. (I wish I had some polls to work with.) I'm glad I went with my heart.

(In fairness to Tony Smith, he's not a NIMBY; some of his ideas just scared me a bit because they would give NIMBY's a louder voice.)

I surprisingly really like Wayne New -- he's the most responsive councilman I've ever had and has been super supportive of higher density development in cap hill/uptown. His NIMBY stance I think is more playing to his cherry creek crowd.....but he's been championing Sherman Street rezoning and other developments along Colfax including doing something trasnformative with the District 6 police station block.

And I dont think Hinds stands a chance -- who votes in runoff elections? Mostly old nimbys in Cherry Creek I would venture to guess.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I have to say, during the debate I watched, she was not well-spoken at all -- to the extent it was hard to watch.

That was really the last straw for me -- no question she is less articulate on Denver issues than the midget rapper who was also running. Having her as the face and spokesperson for the city would be truly embarrassing......moreso than Hancock by a good margin.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by fleury

I dunno. I personally think we should respect our tree lined streets in stable neighborhoods. Cap hill did some pretty incredible damage to a neighborhood that if was left intact would be one of the most beautiful in the nation. Not all development is good development...

What does “stable” mean here? One of the disastrous effects of the urban America's evolution in the late 20th/early 21st century (exclusionary zoning and temporary population declines) is the concept the cities or neighborhoods should be stable. This idea is foreign to most of world history. Neighborhoods and cities are living organisms that are constantly changing, adapting, incrementally growing, becoming richer, becoming poorer. The idea that it’s possible to “stabilize” them is a fallacy.

I think Cap Hill is a wonderful neighborhood just the way it is. There are plenty of examples of the mansions of generations past. But if it weren’t for the wide range of multifamily buildings throughout Cap Hill, many of my middle and lower income friends wouldn’t be able to afford to live in central Denver. Cap Hill is IMO one of Colorado's most excellent neighborhoods because of the architectural and income diversity, which go hand in hand. I'd much rather have that than a Victorian version of Hilltop. If I wanted to live in a city full of Hilltopian curmudgeons and no service industry folks or artists, I'd live in Boulder.

As a renter who would like to be a homeowner some day in a complete neighborhood, how are these tree lined “stable” neighborhoods benefiting me, or the thousands like me? Or the thousands more would-be future Denverites? Besides the warm fuzzies I might get a few times a year walking along pleasant neighborhood streets in Wash Park or Congress Park, what sort of “respect” is due to such neighborhoods? What sort of utility (aside from homeowners’ equity) is to be gained by leaving these neighborhoods essentially the same as they were 110 years ago?

Allowing complete neighborhoods to thrive in Denver and addressing climate change are far more important to me than early 20th century bungalow suburb aesthetics. The Denver I want to live in has a lot more Cap Hills and a lot less West Highlands.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

On a side note, I think Hancock's new attack ad might backfire on him.

I had much the same reaction.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I have to say, during the debate I watched, she was not well-spoken at all -- to the extent it was hard to watch. And every one of her answers was vague. I remember watching and thinking, 'How did this candidate make the cut?' (Several other candidates didn't apparently.) I was shocked when she came in second in the election. I had no idea she was ever a serious contender.

Again I had much the same reaction when I watched their 1st, CBS sponsored debate.

Breaking News:

Brian Mass has a would-be blockbuster interview with Hancock regarding controversy with DIA's ongoing issues over information not previously disclosed or known the the public.

Perhaps Hancock had an inkling what might be coming because he proved to be a competent CEO. Brian kept wanting to make this scandalous news but Hancock handled the whole interview with aplomb while not trying to dodge any responsibility. He instead calmly explained how they're dealing with the issues Brian raises and the process that's yet to be determined. Calm, cool and collected he succinctly communicates the city's position. Very impressive.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/05/22/denver-international-airport-great-hall-project/

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

This idea is foreign to most of world history. Neighborhoods and cities are living organisms that are constantly changing, adapting, incrementally growing, becoming richer, becoming poorer. The idea that it’s possible to “stabilize” them is a fallacy.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. My understanding is that places like Paris while built with higher densities still have most of their original neighborhoods that are hundreds of years old.

My only personal experience is with Ecuador. We started in Guayaquil which is their port city, a place that's easy to feel comfortable from all the Toyota, Coca-Cola etc big bright signs and nice hotels. It's much like any American port city. Very boring.

If you want to 'experience' Ecuador then you go their capital city Quito which is much the same as it was hundreds of years ago. No bright signs but the history is awesome. We walked up to the neighborhood where native Indians sell their handmade goods. I even experienced a pick-pocket attack without even understanding what had happened but the natives in the doorway to where we were going were so kind and helpfully pointed to what had fallen out of my fanny pack to the ground including my Passport. We stayed at an amazing quaint, small, historical hotel. The people are so friendly, low key and helpful.

All that aside
While I understand your thinking I'm not sure that most people yet share your sentiments. I don't recall how long you've been a part of the Denver scene, not that it's all that important but going back two decades it's eye-popping how much downtown has changed. It has accelerated most noticeably over the last decade. My point is partly that's it's one thing to have an 'academic' view of the city the way it is; it's quite another to have watched it change month by month for 20 years.

I'm inclined to share fleury's sentiments. I also assume that Denver will still change lots over the next two decades. Yet it can still retain much of it's signature charm exemplified by the many historical, mostly stable neighborhoods. At least that would be my hope.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Really? I figured that the ~1800 parking spaces at the Tabor Center would be more than enough to support two ~650K towers plus the space the retail space that's been converted to office space. I'm sure that the garage is fully utilized, but I expect that a lot of those space are going to monthly users who work in surrounding buildings and can be told to politely shove off to allocate stalls for the new tower given the lease rate increase that the parking would drive.


I figured that it was more so a question of Ivanhoe re-evaluating projects after the acquisition of Cambridge.

Technically, if the developer is trying to hit a 3.5/1000sf or 5/1000sf parking ratio, which is pretty common in downtown, that would mean at full buildout they would need much more than 1800. 1800 spaces for the single tower gives them a parking ratio of 2.77/1000sf....projecting that out they would need 3600 parking spaces!

[JB1530]

Originally Posted by fleury

Just below that section she talks about focusing density in former industrial areas and along major transportation routes, then goes into talking about design requirements city wide (think Lodo). She is also anti airport city (THANK GOD) and says that development should be focused downtown and not out on the plains creating additional sprawl and strain on our resources.

I don't think she's antidevelopment at all - I think she's just sick of the crap that we are seeing going up helter skelter around town. I'm all for development myself, but I think Denver is turning into a pile of garbage. I wish someone would require developers to create a more thoughtful product. What we end up getting are the developers from texas who throw up a piece of sh!t then sell it 4 years later for a profit. Without any sort of rules / regulations we get the same product every time. I can't imagine any of us on this forum are into that. In our quest to become a world class city lets not sell our soul in the process.

But where is the overwhelming majority of that "crap?" And who oversaw the planning efforts for Brighton Blvd. to facilitate it all?

Let's not forget her background here. Anti-crap development is politically expedient in this election, and her strategists know it. I don't think she'll be substantially different from Hancock on development issues if she's elected.