DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

I want to give Props to our good friend Ryan Dravitz
Who's updated several properties over at DenverInfill. Without these updates I'd lose all track of projects.

My favorite streetscape (Thompson Denver Hotel luffing jib)




Platte Fifteen





Platte Fifteen is being developed by Legend Partners who will be a joint venture partner along with Austin, Texas-based Endeavor Real Estate Group on the Gates District at Broadway Station.

Market Station




All photos credit Ryan Dravitz aka RyanD via DenverInfill

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by vblack

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.

I dunno, I’m reading this hunkered down in a field of grass in a designated wilderness area, just me and my — without a person in sight, less than three hours from Denver. I’m going to credit all of this rampant growth for my one intermittent bar of cell service. I just don’t see the carrying capacity anti-growth nonsense - Boulder-thinking boomers have been saying the same — since they were hippies in the 60s, and every time humanity has figured out how to keep growing while improving our overall quality of life at the same time. We will be fine.

As for stopping the growth - propose something workable as a solution or stop complaining. (And by workable, I mean constitutional, which a newcomers tax is not.) Put up or shut up. Sterilization, ray —, what is your plan for stopping people from moving here? Personally, I prefer to focus my energies on accommodating the growth in the way that creates for the best possible human environment, taking into account multiple goals - preservation of habitat, yes, but housing affordability too. Traffic for sure, but quality of life and opportunity more broadly too.

If the crowds are getting to you, get out more. Stop complaining. My central Denver freezer will be full of wild game meat by nightfall, I’ll get there on a perfectly good highway, and I’ll go celebrate at a douchey brewery that didn’t exist ten years ago in a neighborhood that was terribly blighted. Personally, I feel pretty good about where Colorado is at.

Still open to secession, though. Secession done right.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by vblack

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.

Tying all of this back to development....I'm all for the eastern colorado farms selling their water to front range cities so they can continue growing. Agriculture didn't belong in eastern colorado in the first place...there never was any water there, but the old souls lovingly irrigated so much of it. With the water reverting back to the front range, it's life full circle a hundred years later as much of the irrigation on the eastern slope is now water from the western slope.

Grow crops where it rains. Let people live where it's sunny. Build, baby build!

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by vblack

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.

Yep. And we will do that. Just like other, much more arid areas than ours, have done.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Ich

...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...

I am starting to get on board with the anti-growthers. Given it's mainly old folks (this is my opinion and has no basis in fact) who got theirs with marginal skills and a reliable middle class job in the 70's and 80's, they will be the first ones pushed out of the front range when the growth limits start having an impact on affordability. In some ways, it's the fastest path to banning SFH zoning and densifying the Front Range because if we gentrify the entire front range, it will organically force out all the anti-growthers! This is logical, right?!

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by vblack

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.

The crime in Denver is quite low compared to other big cities. As for the "crowds", I like people. If I wanted open space and star viewing, I wouldn't live in a city.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

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


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.

As for the water issue, I'm seeing more of it around Denver, but desert landscaping works well here. Yucca, cactus, rock... saves lots of water. Our home landscaping should probably look more like Phoenix than Chicago.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

As for the water issue, I'm seeing more of it around Denver, but desert landscaping works well here. Yucca, cactus, rock... saves lots of water. Our home landscaping should probably look more like Phoenix than Chicago.

That's certainly true, particularly for newer developments where water is becoming increasingly expensive to source.

Here's a great link from CSU that really gives detailed information on current and future Colorado water use.

https://waterknowledge.colostate.edu/water-management-administration/water-uses/

For all of our talk about population growth and water scarcity impacting urban Colorado, the reality is that almost 90 percent of Colorado consumptive use is taken up by agricultural uses.

Where will future water for Colorado cities come from? Largely by re-purposing agricultural uses. This is a matter of great controversy in Colorado, and certainly has the potential to have negative economic impacts in rural parts of Colorado. But for me, generally speaking the market for water should be a "free market" allowing market values to define highest and best use. In any event, before we get too excited about the "death" of rural Colorado, from the CSU water summary it appears you could double the percentage of urban use in Colorado and agriculture will still consume 80 + percent - so still a very substantial agricultural economy supported by water.

Of course there's a logistical issue, again noted by CSU. Most of the water is on the wrong side of the mountains for urban Colorado. I'm not sure what the "real" potential is for diverting agricultural water (whether from west slope or east slope) for use by Front Range cities (though the CSU map indicates that there's 2.5 million acres of irrigated land in Easter Colorado!!), though I suspect it's still very substantial.

As with many resource issues, I think solutions lie through a combination of actions: reduce urban consumption + re-deploy usage from "less valuable" (as determined by a free market) uses.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

That's certainly true, particularly for newer developments where water is becoming increasingly expensive to source.

Here's a great link from CSU that really gives detailed information on current and future Colorado water use.

https://waterknowledge.colostate.edu/water-management-administration/water-uses/

For all of our talk about population growth and water scarcity impacting urban Colorado, the reality is that almost 90 percent of Colorado consumptive use is taken up by agricultural uses.

Where will future water for Colorado cities come from? Largely by re-purposing agricultural uses. This is a matter of great controversy in Colorado, and certainly has the potential to have negative economic impacts in rural parts of Colorado. But for me, generally speaking the market for water should be a "free market" allowing market values to define highest and best use. In any event, before we get too excited about the "death" of rural Colorado, from the CSU water summary it appears you could double the percentage of urban use in Colorado and agriculture will still consume 80 + percent - so still a very substantial agricultural economy supported by water.

Of course there's a logistical issue, again noted by CSU. Most of the water is on the wrong side of the mountains for urban Colorado. I'm not sure what the "real" potential is for diverting agricultural water (whether from west slope or east slope) for use by Front Range cities (though the CSU map indicates that there's 2.5 million acres of irrigated land in Easter Colorado!!), though I suspect it's still very substantial.

As with many resource issues, I think solutions lie through a combination of actions: reduce urban consumption + re-deploy usage from "less valuable" (as determined by a free market) uses.

Thank you! Yes, this is definitely what I was getting at. With percentages like that, it is completely unfair to cast urban density as the villain. I personally agree with previous posts that it is okay to re-allocate some of that agricultural water for growing cities, especially considering the vast amount of OVERPRODUCTION in the US farming industry.

That's not even to mention that high-density will consume both water and land more efficiently per person. I think it's fair to say that most of us on here don't buy the old tropes about "American Freedom" and "packing people in Singapore-style" (because Singapore looks to be SUCH a terrible place).

CherryCreekyou do a good job of pointing out that this is still controversial. The point about the problem of most water being over on the western slope is something I haven't considered before. The water that is already being brought over to eastern aqueducts as part of the Colorado Big Thompson system is probably the prime target for water-rights reallocation in the short term. The system of reservoirs it is connected to already supplies water to the municipal systems of many of the most rapidly growing areas of the Front Range.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

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".

I thought this was an especially good comment among several that have been quite good.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Thank you! Yes, this is definitely what I was getting at. With percentages like that, it is completely unfair to cast urban density as the villain. I personally agree with previous posts that it is okay to re-allocate some of that agricultural water for growing cities, especially considering the vast amount of OVERPRODUCTION in the US farming industry.

That's not even to mention that high-density will consume both water and land more efficiently per person.

Agree that CherryCreek's comment was very good; I'm generally aware but couldn't have articulated it as well.

Recently (last 2-3 years), Denver Water forged an agreement with the Western Slope, environmental groups etc and everybody was satisfied if not ecstatic. As a part of the Colorado River Compact which was updated last year among all the states, Colorado is committed to let 'X' amount of water flow downstream. Aside from the projects agreed to by the Denver Water Board that's about the end of transferring water from the west slope to eastern plains (although not sure about northern Colorado).

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Agree that CherryCreek's comment was very good; I'm generally aware but couldn't have articulated it as well.

Recently (last 2-3 years), Denver Water forged an agreement with the Western Slope, environmental groups etc and everybody was satisfied if not ecstatic. As a part of the Colorado River Compact which was updated last year among all the states, Colorado is committed to let 'X' amount of water flow downstream. Aside from the projects agreed to by the Denver Water Board that's about the end of transferring water from the west slope to eastern plains (although not sure about northern Colorado).

"West slope" water may be (nearly) maxed out for east slope uses, but of course the re-purposing of agricultural water would not necessarily require any "new" west slope water. Rather, it would mean that some of those 2.5 million (!!!) acres of irrigated agricultural land in eastern Colorado would be retired (or perhaps re-purposed to lower water consuming crops), to free up water for the Front Range Cities. Also, I believe that "east slope" water is not yet maxed out from a Colorado perspective - that Colorado has rights to retain more water than it currently does flowing east, but the project(s) to do that just haven't been built.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/06/30/colorado-water-south-platte-river-reservoirs/

If water is properly valued, there will be incentives for BOTH urban areas to conserve, and move to less consumptive models (hello, Yucca plants!), and for the least valuable agricultural uses to be re-deployed to serve cities.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

"West slope" water may be (nearly) maxed out for east slope uses, but of course the re-purposing of agricultural water would not necessarily require any "new" west slope water. Rather, it would mean that some of those 2.5 million (!!!) acres of irrigated agricultural land in eastern Colorado would be retired (or perhaps re-purposed to lower water consuming crops), to free up water for the Front Range Cities. Also, I believe that "east slope" water is not yet maxed out from a Colorado perspective - that Colorado has rights to retain more water than it currently does flowing east, but the project(s) to do that just haven't been built.

If water is properly valued, they were will be incentives for BOTH urban areas to conserve, and move to less consumptive models (hello, Yucca plants!), and for the least valuable agricultural uses to be re-deployed to serve cities.

Yes, I read that part of your comment as well and agree. A lot of my perspective has changed since living in the desert re: landscaping for example. Would you believe they grow crops and have dairy farms in the desert? Same thing: there's still lots of water that could be re-purposed. That said I believe in 'farming' having grown up in Iowa so sharing with one's neighbor is always a good thing.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Also, I believe that "east slope" water is not yet maxed out from a Colorado perspective - that Colorado has rights to retain more water than it currently does flowing east, but the project(s) to do that just haven't been built.

I doubt there is anything so complex as water rights and it's an area where cooperation is better than trying to sort everything out in courts. I suspect that as a lawyer even you would get headaches from dealing with these issues.

[vblack]

Moved.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by vblack

Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist

Thoughts from the growth can continue indefinitely folks?

I think I can speak for a majority of the Denver forum folks here when I say we wish to move back to discussing Denver development projects..... There's a whole City Discussions sub-forum where folks can go crazy on this topic.

[vblack]

Originally Posted by twister244

I think I can speak for a majority of the Denver forum folks here when I say we wish to move back to discussing Denver development projects..... There's a whole City Discussions sub-forum where folks can go crazy on this topic.

Fair enough. I'll change the post.

[vblack]

Louisville City Council approves $1.5 million incentive to fill former StorageTek site

[Denver Dweller]

https://businessden.com/2019/10/16/16-st...m_term=0_e8b1506f0c-6cc6e695cd-147998669

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

https://businessden.com/2019/10/16/16-st...m_term=0_e8b1506f0c-6cc6e695cd-147998669

Golden Triangle is becoming super vertical. I would've preferred this to happen in a more transit connected area but maybe improvements to RTD's bus services can help this area.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Golden Triangle is becoming super vertical. I would've preferred this to happen in a more transit connected area but maybe improvements to RTD's bus services can help this area.

I agree. I think between potential BRT along Speer and Broadway, the area would be served pretty well. Yeah, it's great to see this level of infill going in there at this level.