DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[mojiferous]

Has anyone heard any rumblings about what is planned for the lot on 16th and Welton where the Cottrell's building is/was? They're tearing it down right now and the only permit I can find is the demolition permit

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Has anyone heard any rumblings about what is planned for the lot on 16th and Welton where the Cottrell's building is/was? They're tearing it down right now and the only permit I can find is the demolition permit

There was some brief discussion on Page 346 with reference to Boston-based Harbinger Development who also acquired 650 7th street from Buzz. Nothing has yet been submitted afaik, but their website suggests a "315,000 square foot mixed use project" and also indicates they hold an "Option."

[The Dirt]

Don't they own the building next door, where the Target is, too?

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

I guess what you would have to explain to me is how 5,300 new residents far from the urban core and away from our major transit investments considered good planning. I don't have sentimental feeling about keeping it open space for the sake of keeping it open space, but this is an awful location for development. It would demonstrate to me that we have learned nothing about planning across the front range since the early 90's.

The NW corner of the site is 1 mile from the Sheridan park n' ride for the <10% of people who work/commute downtown, not that it matters. It's a common theme I hear, urban core employment. It typically comes from people who work in the urban core, higher income folks, who tend to speak only from their lens of the world. The vast majority of people do not work downtown, so the light rail and BRT largely do not serve them and proximity to those types of transit is irrelevant - those are reserved for rich white folk in the burbs. Folks who live in areas like this would be extremely well served by local bus routes that don't exist (either at all or functionally by way of frequency).

This is a fantastic location for medium density development because it utilizes IN PLACE roadways, utilities, open space, parks, amenities, etc. It will help all of the dying businesses in this area of Westminster get a shot of life. Remember all of that commercial and office zoned land that still hasn't been updated from the 1980's? Well, developments like this will help local businesses hang on and, if the density is done right, thrive while providing much needed housing for so many PEOPLE. People should be a priority when making legislation, and not just people who "already have theirs".

[vblack]

At what point does growth cease to be good?

Or is growth always good, by definition?

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by vblack

Stopping it is impossible. Lessening it is possible.

How 'bout we assess the degradation that accompanies nearly-unrestrained growth and add that as a fee that those who want that growth to continue would have to pay? That ought to slow them down, if growth has to start to pay for the downsides it creates.

Only if we vote to define what "downside" means beforehand. What, in your opinion, is the downside to all of this growth? By the way, population growth in the State of CO is on track to be the 4th slowest decade since gold was found shortly before and western denver civilization established in the 1860's...

I like the growth, new restaurants, pretty buildings, rapid bus transit to my comfortable downtown job, reborn ski train, etc, etc. We can build a water pipeline from the Missouri River...help eliminate flooding in the Midwest and kill two birds with one stone. My only gripe is traffic on I-70 to the mountains, but that too can be solved, we just don't have the political cajones or the voters pocket books to make it happen...yet.

[Ejjwheel]

Colorado's air quality, especially along the front range, is very low and that is directly attributable to the massive growth we have seen, both in population and in the development of the Denver-Julesburg Basin.

https://denver.streetsblog.org/2019/10/1...increase-in-metro-denver-auto-emissions/

[vblack]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Only if we vote to define what "downside" means beforehand. What, in your opinion, is the downside to all of this growth?

The traffic. The crime. The pollution. The crowds at everything everywhere. The noise. That one can only see maybe a handful of stars at night. The wild animals being killed because we're encroaching on their habitat.

We're supposedly smarter than bacteria in a petri dish. Let's prove that by not killing ourselves with our effluent.

[Sam Hill]

I'm starting to get a few pings on my troll radar.

[vblack]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It's interesting how water is more limiting to the Eastern Slope and specifically the Metro area than it is in the desert. City of Phoenix, for example, has stored surplus water in underground aquifers to cover over three years of drought induced water shortages.

Water isn't all that limiting; if anything it's more about logistics.

The continuing aridification of the SW US and the odds of a megadrought increasing mean that unless we really address the overuse of the Colorado River, Denver and Phoenix are going to see some very radical and expensive changes. I wouldn't be surprised to see both drop in population at some point in the not-too-distant future.

[vblack]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I'm starting to get a few pings on my troll radar.

If realizing that growth cannot continue forever qualifies as troll POV, so be it.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Ejjwheel

Colorado's air quality, especially along the front range, is very low and that is directly attributable to the massive growth we have seen, both in population and in the development of the Denver-Julesburg Basin.

https://denver.streetsblog.org/2019/10/1...increase-in-metro-denver-auto-emissions/

FYI, Weld County wants all the wells that O&G companies are willing to drill. Their economy is heavily reliant on O&G and Agribusiness. Good guess you won't find many liberal elitists hanging out around Greeley.

How familiar are you with the history of Xcel Energy over the last decade and their plans moving forward? If you're not familiar then do yourself a favor and Google it.

How familiar are you with the future plans of the global auto manufacturers? If unfamiliar that would be another area you could benefit knowing about.

A lot of the business unfriendly proposals would only improve things a wee bit at the margin and do nothing to prevent forest fires which are big polluters

Originally Posted by vblack

The continuing aridification of the SW US and the odds of a megadrought increasing mean that unless we really address the overuse of the Colorado River, Denver and Phoenix are going to see some very radical and expensive changes. I wouldn't be surprised to see both drop in population at some point in the not-too-distant future.

A mega-drought is speculative. A lot will depend on the impact, if any on El Nina and La Nino cycles.

Are you familiar with last years agreement on the Colorado River Compact that was agreed to by the states involved?

Besides is there anything more important than the Avalanche just winning their 5th consecutive game to start the season? I don't think so.

[mr1138]

It's hard to take seriously a conversation about water usage in the Colorado basin that fails to mention the role of agriculture.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by vblack

If realizing that growth cannot continue forever qualifies as troll POV, so be it.

They were faint pings. Something started smelling a bit fishy. Perhaps my radar is too sensitive and needs to be re-calibrated, but your barrage of posts started getting more over-the-top and started to come of as disingenuous to me.

Here's the problem with interfering with the market by artificially limiting growth:

People are moving here because our economy is booming (population booms always coincide with economic booms for a reason) and jobs are being created here like crazy. Some might simply be moving here because they love our beautiful state, but still, the fact that there's a job here for them makes it feasible.

If we limit growth by taxing the — out of newcomers with a making-the-place-too-crowded-and-polluted tax, (or by limiting development as is currently being proposed), we're interfering with the markets in a way that would come back to bite us and the ramifications would be far worse than so-called "unabated" growth.

Local businesses are going to keep creating jobs. There's nothing we can do to stop that (short of some asinine regulatory disincentive). Your preposterous idea would create a severe labor shortage and eventually become a crippling disincentive for businesses to even locate here.

A hard growth (development) limit would have similar ramifications. The demand to live here doesn't change; job creation doesn't slow down; but the housing supply is artificially limited. As time passes, demand increasingly outstrips supply and the cost of housing subsequently skyrockets. We've seen this very thing happen time and again when municipalities implement growth limits.

If you want to reduce pollution, regulate pollution - not population.

One last thing: If there's a limit to how much population this very sparsely populated part of the earth can support, we're not even remotely close to reaching it.

[corey]

I get really tired of people complaining about population growth in Colorado. It maybe higher lately, but it’ll slow down again like it always does, and the average rate over time isn’t nearly as high as other places in the country (Florida, Texas, Arizona, etc.) and the world. States that are losing population would LOVE to have a growth “problem” like Colorado. Also, unless you are descendant from a Native American tribe that resided in Colorado before Europeans, and other groups, moved in, then at some point your family moved here for presumably a better life. Complaining about newcomers moving to Colorado is very hypocritical. If a “native” Coloradan decided to move to another place then they’d be part of the growth “problem” there now wouldn’t they? Besides, Americans take it for granted that they can move anywhere in the country they want to and I’m sure nearly every anti-growther would feel oppressed if they were told they couldn’t move somewhere themselves because it is now “full.” I bet few of the Coloradans that move from here move to Ohio, Michigan, or Illinois or other states that are losing population or are stagnant. I wonder why that is? It annoys me when people who’s lineage doesn’t go back thousands of years where they live feel that other people don’t have the right to move there. Growth limits are totally counterproductive and hypocritical. Well planned growth that is as sustainable as possible is the best solution.

[vblack]

Originally Posted by mr1138

It's hard to take seriously a conversation about water usage in the Colorado basin that fails to mention the role of agriculture.

Colorado agriculture will likely have to be much reduced or radically changed to accommodate population stress on water resources along with climate change and the overdraw of aquifers.

[vblack]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Here's the problem with interfering with the market by artificially limiting growth:

If we don't limit ourselves, the natural world will do it for us.

[vblack]

Originally Posted by corey

I get really tired of people complaining about population growth in Colorado. It maybe higher lately, but it’ll slow down again like it always does, and the average rate over time isn’t nearly as high as other places in the country (Florida, Texas, Arizona, etc.) and the world. States that are losing population would LOVE to have a growth “problem” like Colorado. Also, unless you are descendant from a Native American tribe that resided in Colorado before Europeans, and other groups, moved in, then at some point your family moved here for presumably a better life. Complaining about newcomers moving to Colorado is very hypocritical. If a “native” Coloradan decided to move to another place then they’d be part of the growth “problem” there now wouldn’t they? Besides, Americans take it for granted that they can move anywhere in the country they want to and I’m sure nearly every anti-growther would feel oppressed if they were told they couldn’t move somewhere themselves because it is now “full.” I bet few of the Coloradans that move from here move to Ohio, Michigan, or Illinois or other states that are losing population or are stagnant. I wonder why that is? It annoys me when people who’s lineage doesn’t go back thousands of years where they live feel that other people don’t have the right to move there. Growth limits are totally counterproductive and hypocritical. Well planned growth that is as sustainable as possible is the best solution.

When the number of people here has gotten to the point that the best we can do for our outdoor places is to stop visiting them entirely so they have a chance of recovery, our growth is no longer sustainable.

[Ich]

Originally Posted by vblack

When the number of people here has gotten to the point that the best we can do for our outdoor places is to stop visiting them entirely so they have a chance of recovery, our growth is no longer sustainable.

That’s going to happen regardless. A lot of that is also due to tourism. Would recommend that we limit how many visitors around to visit Denver and the mountains? I appreciate your concern for our state and wanting to ensure a healthy sustainable environment for all. I would like the same but I think it’s a bit narrow minded to think the only solution is to restrict the population and growth. The problem I have with people with your stance is the lack of solutions and ideas to handle the problem. You think vary narrow without incorporating other factors. For instance, I hope that with your concern of the environment also come with the concern for others to have a place to live. So if you restrict growth then you restrict the housing supply which increases housing costs. So where do the teachers, food service, retail, and low income workers live? You don’t want them in the burbs because that is eating up the free land. Your NIMBY friends in central Denver doesn’t want them because it will jeopardize the character of their neighborhood. So it forces them to the outskirts, usually in counties that don’t mind the growth creating more sprawl. I think smart growth options such as denser infill with adequate public transportation will allow for an increase in the housing supply, remove the dependency for cars and allow for workers to live closer to where they actually work.

I think we should ban SFH zoning in all of central Denver but that will probably never happen.

[Sam Hill]

I dunno man. My trolldar is still getting some pings. This character veered us into the one topic that riles us up the most, and now he's dragging it out for page after page with vague, unsubstantiated, quick retorts. I'm done playing with you vblack.