DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

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.

Part of what I like about Cap Hill is how you see the different decades interwoven among the 1800s architecture. You can walk around and see how it evolved throughout the past 140 (or so) years. 60s highrises aren't exactly beautiful, but they add an urban element and allow non-millionaires to live in the city.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

Part of what I like about Cap Hill is how you see the different decades interwoven among the 1800s architecture. You can walk around and see how it evolved throughout the past 140 (or so) years. 60s highrises aren't exactly beautiful, but they add an urban element and allow non-millionaires to live in the city.

I agree about Capitol Hill. And one ironic part of the current densification of Denver and the building boom of the past 9 years is that it has largely skipped over the original urban neighborhood, Capitol Hill (largely because of who the owners are of available land, according to people on here).

There is plenty of room for additional densification in the future - just check out all the parking lots and low density uses that are there now.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7341132,-104.9854594,1037m/data=!3m1!1e3

It's too bad more of this available land wasn't developed this cycle, but that just means it will constitute an additional land bank for future use (together with Golden Triangle). Perhaps by then greater density will be allowed ! (30 stories!).

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

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.

I agree entirely. I will be voting for him this round! He strikes me as a moderate - trying to preserve much of the current neighborhood structure but looking for opportunities to add density where it's politically viable. Maybe not ideal for those wanting maximum density everywhere, but certainly not an "all development is bad" guy, or someone resisting all change and growth in Denver.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

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.

so you admit this is really about your economic status than anything else. we see this repeatedly in this election cycle. renters vs homeowners. drivers vs bikers. latinos vs the world.

i'll counter with a question. how does tearing down the beautiful neighborhoods so you can move in benefit me as a land owning taxpayer? i'm paying a shitload in taxes only to have the envious renters tell me it's not enough? please.


i'm not even saying you're wrong, necessarily, but it's clear so much of these divisions are really personal. how many die hard bicyclists advocating for the end of cars have cars? probably not many, so it's awfully easy to advocate for the end of parking or whatever.

how many poor old latinos are standing up against development because of their own circumstances? you have councilmen and recorders running simply on the promise to keep the old latinos safe from development. again, it's all personal interest.

the truth is, our streetcar neighborhoods embody exactly what the urbanist zone complainers point to as the ideal. row houses, duplexes, bigger and smaller houses, almost all on tight lots with very little space in between. keep in mind that these are actually very well built structures, made to stand the test of time, unlike almost anything else being built today. the tradeoff is that we'll lose our well built and historic housing in exchange for stick built shit that will fall down in no time if we don't consider protecting what we have.

---no, i'm not talking about the guy scraping and putting a mcmansion on his lot. i'm talking about protecting the housing stock that fits the definitions of missing middle and whatever else.

urban renewal is looked back today as being the worst thing ever. ironically many who have that belief seem to be pushing for urban renewal 2.0 where the developers win and everybody else loses (except the guy who thinks he should live right downtown because he's a young renter with debt and the world owes him).

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Exactly!

And for all you anti-sprawl Nincompoops, affordable sprawl is a good, not bad thing. It's unrealistic for lower wage workers to be forced to settle for tech-bros prices and live downtown. The missing-middle while aesthetically nice will never solve the affordability problem.

Those of you who fly in and out of DIA likely don't even notice the great number of lower-wage stiffs who grease the inter-workings of travel. Same goes for all those gritty jobs that enable high-brow commerce to flourish in Denver. While there's a lot of jobs downtown there's even more jobs that aren't downtown. In either case transit accessible affordable housing can enable the metro area to function much better, especially for all those you don't 'see.'

There's over 60 light and commuter rail stations which translates into tons of opportunity for creating more affordable housing. The main obstacle is that larger developers would much prefer to cater to the paying crowd. But over time I'd expect to see other developers taking the road less traveled.

If we're truly preparing Denver to be a major city down the line, maybe we can acknowledge that everybody in Paris doesn't live on the Siene. Not everybody in New York lives in midtown Manhattan. That point being, as Denver continues to grow, it's going to be even more absurd to think everybody should live in that one main city core.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

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.

Denver could take some cues from the east coast where historic cities recognize the value of the history and historic structures.

in short, if we are stupid enough to destroy our streetcar neighborhoods for the sake of jamming more people in, we'll certainly deserve the lifeless, soulless, poorly built developers wet dreams shit we'll get in exchange.

[Denvergotback]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

If we're truly preparing Denver to be a major city down the line, maybe we can acknowledge that everybody in Paris doesn't live on the Siene. Not everybody in New York lives in midtown Manhattan. That point being, as Denver continues to grow, it's going to be even more absurd to think everybody should live in that one main city core.

I don't think anyone is advocating that everyone lives in the main city core. The idea behind peoples thinking on here is to create opportunities for everyone of every walk of life to enjoy the amenities the city core has to offer, to get everyone the chance to live in a large walkable/bike(able) city. Allow people to have the opportunity to live close to work and not have to commute if possible.

Building cities that can only cater to the rich or poor is only going to create a larger deficit. The city is growing, whether people like it or not, and being the city core that Denver is, puts the city in a position where it must come up with solutions to cater to these people moving in. The solutions aren't always ideal, but at least Denver is trying to cater to everyone instead of just trying to displace people to the far edges of the metro. There is nothing wrong with trying to build cities that cater to everyone.

When you think about world class cities do you think of Houston, Dallas, or Phoenix? Or do you think of New York, Toronto, San Fransisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, New Orleans, etc, etc...

All world class, imo, but it really does come down to what type of city you want to become.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

I don't think anyone is advocating that everyone lives in the main city core. The idea behind peoples thinking on here is to create opportunities for everyone of every walk of life to enjoy the amenities the city core has to offer, to get everyone the chance to live in a large walkable/bike(able) city. Allow people to have the opportunity to live close to work and not have to commute if possible.

Building cities that can only cater to the rich or poor is only going to create a larger deficit. The city is growing, whether people like it or not, and being the city core that Denver is, puts the city in a position where it must come up with solutions to cater to these people moving in. The solutions aren't always ideal, but at least Denver is trying to cater to everyone instead of just trying to displace people to the far edges of the metro. There is nothing wrong with trying to build cities that cater to everyone.

When you think about world class cities do you think of Houston, Dallas, or Phoenix? Or do you think of New York, Toronto, San Fransisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, New Orleans, etc, etc...

All world class, imo, but it really does come down to what type of city you want to become.

nobody is saying that there shouldn't be access to the city for everybody. and again, i haven't ever seen one person say they want a city for just the super rich.

i'm not sure what you just accomplished by naming cities. you named new york as a world class city, but you do realize that residents in new york ride trains for hours a day to get places, right? chicago too. most folks have to utilize transportation in these cities.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

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!

Those numbers are way off. New office buildings in downtown range from around 1.0/1000 in the DUS area to mid/high 1.0s, such as Block 162, which IIRC is around 1.7 spaces per 1000 sq.

New buildings in the DTC tend to come in around 4.0.

[awholeparade]

Originally Posted by JB1530

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

A majority of that was all built before design standards went into place.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

When you think about world class cities do you think of Houston, Dallas, or Phoenix? Or do you think of New York, Toronto, San Fransisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, New Orleans, etc, etc...

All world class, imo, but it really does come down to what type of city you want to become.

Top destinations for international visitors to the U.S.

1) New York 2) Miami 3) Las Vegas 4) Los Angeles 5) Orlando 6) San Francisco
7) Honolulu 8) Washington D.C. 9) Chicago 10) Boston 11) San Jose 12) Houston

U.S. Global Cities

Tier One:
1) New York City 2) Los Angeles 3) San Francisco/Silicon Valley
Tier Two
4) Miami 5) Houston
Tier Three
7) Chicago 8) Washington DC 9) Seattle

The top U.S. cities (out of 25) for the future
1) San Francisco, U.S. 2) New York City, U.S. 5) Boston, U.S. 8) Houston, U.S. 15) Chicago, U.S. 17) Atlanta, U.S. 19) Washington, DC 25) Los Angeles, U.S.

[Denvergotback]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Top destinations for international visitors to the U.S.

1) New York 2) Miami 3) Las Vegas 4) Los Angeles 5) Orlando 6) San Francisco
7) Honolulu 8) Washington D.C. 9) Chicago 10) Boston 11) San Jose 12) Houston

U.S. Global Cities

Tier One:
1) New York City 2) Los Angeles 3) San Francisco/Silicon Valley
Tier Two
4) Miami 5) Houston
Tier Three
7) Chicago 8) Washington DC 9) Seattle

The top U.S. cities (out of 25) for the future
1) San Francisco, U.S. 2) New York City, U.S. 5) Boston, U.S. 8) Houston, U.S. 15) Chicago, U.S. 17) Atlanta, U.S. 19) Washington, DC 25) Los Angeles, U.S.

In that same quote you quoted from me, I said that in my opinion they are all world class cities; and did not deny that fact at all, but accepted it. Then in my very next sentence I proceeded to say "it really does come down to what type of city you want to become."

I guess I'm just wondering why you posted this? I don't really see the disconnect from what I said to what you posted.

I do believe firmly it comes down to what type of city you want Denver to become in the future. Do we want to follow the Houston/Dallas model by sprawling to keep prices down and keeping the city cores at very low density or do we want to become a city like New York, Chicago, Boston, San Fransisco, or Seattle that emphasizes the point to create large walkable urban streetscapes that people of all walks of life can have an opportunity to be a part of. Whether that be by building low income housing or micro apartments.

Both can achieve cheaper housing, but because of the nature of the city core (of any city really) it's going to be more expensive. Like some have mentioned on here before, I wouldn't necessarily go as far to say Denver metro is too expensive, as you can certainly find some cheaper townhomes/condos on the outer edges of the metro. Maybe not Texas cheap, but certainly not unattainable.. but Denver is wanting to create a more sustainable city, certainly there can't be anything wrong with that; but just like everything, there will be some change along the way that not everyone is going to like, and yes that means redeveloping parking lots in core neighborhoods into higher density development. I completely understand the thought process behind wondering why developers aren't pushing their developments to the max zoning allowed. I wonder that too... but at the end of the day it is the developers choice and not so much the cities, and if you believe at all in the free market (which I believe you have mentioned before) then I really don't think we can praise a free market in one hand and then complain in the other when a developer wants to build on his own property for marketing purposes.... so long as it is within code and zoning.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I agree entirely. I will be voting for him this round! He strikes me as a moderate - trying to preserve much of the current neighborhood structure but looking for opportunities to add density where it's politically viable. Maybe not ideal for those wanting maximum density everywhere, but certainly not an "all development is bad" guy, or someone resisting all change and growth in Denver.

Judging by the barrage of mail I'm getting from Wayne New for City Council, he's 100% NIMBY. (Is anyone else getting this mail?) "Protecting neighborhoods from density" is his whole campaign message. If that's the kind of message he's putting out, then I can't support him in any way -- regardless of whether or not he means it.

[seventwenty]

Vote RyanD for City Moderator of District 12.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

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

You're probably right.

[Mountain man]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

if you believe at all in the free market (which I believe you have mentioned before) then I really don't think we can praise a free market in one hand and then complain in the other when a developer wants to build on his own property for marketing purposes.... so long as it is within code and zoning.

That’s definitely a pill to swallow. Really makes you think about things a little, huh?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

I guess I'm just wondering why you posted this? I don't really see the disconnect from what I said to what you posted.

I wasn't looking for or asserting a "disconnect" and I understood the gist of your own point of view but it piqued my curiosity.

"World class" or "global" cities is a somewhat common reference. For example, you used it. I wondered what it meant; what was the definition; who decides these things? I found it's often a topic of subjective opinion on various blogs. I was interested in finding something more substantive. I figured if a city was 'world class' then presumably it would appeal to international business and tourist travelers. Certainly seems logical.

Anyway I merely posted as a result of my own curiosity what I thought represented credible sources and assessments of which cities would qualify.
That's all folks. No biggie.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

I do believe firmly it comes down to what type of city you want Denver to become in the future. Do we want to follow the Houston/Dallas model by sprawling to keep prices down and keeping the city cores at very low density or do we want to become a city like New York, Chicago, Boston, San Fransisco, or Seattle that emphasizes the point to create large walkable urban streetscapes that people of all walks of life can have an opportunity to be a part of. Whether that be by building low income housing or micro apartments.

There's nothing wrong with envisioning what the future of Denver should look like and certainly you or anybody is entitled to their own opinion.

Just a good guess that in a city of 700,000 people you would find a great divergence of opinions. If you asked many Denverites "Wouldn't you like to grow up to be just like NYC, Chicago or San Francisco?" I'll guess you might be surprised how many would 'shudder' or say "Hell No." I suspect most Denverites have a pride in their own hometown and want it to be like Denver. Presumably if they preferred San Francisco then they'd move there.

I'll assume being 'walkable' can appeal to most people but for many that might mean having a sidewalk in their neighborhood. I have a nephew that lives nearby to University and Alameda in Wash Park in an old home where they popped the top. They have two young kids and I'm pretty sure he couldn't care less about some textbook version of what Denver should be. That said, I suspect he's reasonable and willing to look at things issues by issue.

Cities in the southwest sprawl primarily due to cheap land and free market politics. People who don't live in Dallas or Houston may think they're unappealing. Most people who actually live there think both cities are cool. It's called different strokes.

But Denver doesn't have lots of cheap land to speak of and I've always viewed it as a Hybrid City. It's neither land-limited like San Francisco or Seattle nor is it likely to sprawl like cities in the SW. As long ago predicted growth and population mostly follows the eastern slope of the Rockies.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Those numbers are way off. New office buildings in downtown range from around 1.0/1000 in the DUS area to mid/high 1.0s, such as Block 162, which IIRC is around 1.7 spaces per 1000 sq.

New buildings in the DTC tend to come in around 4.0.

Yes I was pulling more of my knowledge of DTC area, I stand corrected, though some tenants demand a higher parking ratio which is why they end up in the DTC. So if the developer were to be willing to drop the parking ratio closer to 1.4/1000 then they may not need to add parking.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

There's nothing wrong with envisioning what the future of Denver should look like and certainly you or anybody is entitled to their own opinion.

Just a good guess that in a city of 700,000 people you would find a great divergence of opinions. If you asked many Denverites "Wouldn't you like to grow up to be just like NYC, Chicago or San Francisco?" I'll guess you might be surprised how many would 'shudder' or say "Hell No." I suspect most Denverites have a pride in their own hometown and want it to be like Denver. Presumably if they preferred San Francisco then they'd move there.

I'll assume being 'walkable' can appeal to most people but for many that might mean having a sidewalk in their neighborhood. I have a nephew that lives nearby to University and Alameda in Wash Park in an old home where they popped the top. They have two young kids and I'm pretty sure he couldn't care less about some textbook version of what Denver should be. That said, I suspect he's reasonable and willing to look at things issues by issue.

Cities in the southwest sprawl primarily due to cheap land and free market politics. People who don't live in Dallas or Houston may think they're unappealing. Most people who actually live there think both cities are cool. It's called different strokes.

But Denver doesn't have lots of cheap land to speak of and I've always viewed it as a Hybrid City. It's neither land-limited like San Francisco or Seattle nor is it likely to sprawl like cities in the SW. As long ago predicted growth and population mostly follows the eastern slope of the Rockies.

Denver is definitely a hybrid between a West Coast city like Seattle or Portland and a sprawling Great Plains-type city like Dallas or Kansas City. I'd like to see Denver keep a balance between the two even if it means the outlying areas continue to sprawl. The urban core is getting denser each year and the level of density continues to expand into surrounding neighborhoods (where it can).