DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Cost me 5 bucks to get from O'Hare to the Loop in Chicago on a train line that runs every 7 minutes. Sure the Blue Line is... Well the Blue Line, but it's reliable and I could rely on it for my needs.

Taking the A-Line I plan 3 trains. 1) Super early 2) Earlier than I still want to be at DIA 3) I pray to the heavens that this train will not be delayed.

Ryan, do you know if the trains in Chicago is a PPP or purely publicly funded? Could this be the source of the problem...?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by rct

I like your points, but think you logic is backwards. Competition is good for the consumer. The consumer is what matters right?

Nicely stated.

Originally Posted by rct

RTD needs to lower their fares and they will get many more riders and maybe more revenue.

OOps... You ran off the rails here. I appreciate this is a common myth perpetuated by the left but it's all wrong... er, at least 90%. Liberals are notorious for "assuming" what others want or should want as if they don't have the mental capacity to decide for themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Reasons people don't use transit

• The Number One reason is... it won't take them where they need to go.
• The Number Two reason is... TIME, especially if they'll need to make a transfer, transit can take two to three times as much time.
• The Number Three reason is... convenience/accessibility. Most don't want to walk 20 minutes to the bus/train stop. Many times security is a concern especially after dark and for women.
• The Number Four reason is... transit is not reliable.
• The Number Five reason is... too many stops. Once somebody is boarded they hate having to stop 10 times and wait at each stop for other people to board.

The cost to ride is literally last on any list and usually not even on the list; Everybody has to get to work somehow and only walking or biking is cheaper.

I do ride-share and I like variety so one day I'll pick up riders going to the airport who live in gated communities where I have to stop so they can write down my name, driver's license number and plate number - or if they've updated their tech they just take photos of my driver's license and license plate.

I also like to work in (my son's) working class neighborhood with amazing diversity, from economic to all colors of the rainbow. Picked up a nice black lady, no car, who was called to work the night shift at a senior care center. She had a bit of a load and transit wasn't really a good option. She gave me a $3 tip for a $4 ride. Working class riders are generally more likely to tip even if it just a few $'s than uppity class riders. Obviously it's not about getting a low-dollar ride. Bus transit in the area is quite good but there's a gazillion reasons why 'poor' people pay for ride-share. In many cases they just prefer it for either security and comfort reason or just simply time and convenience. These are more typically low cost short rides but it can vary.

Point is people, all people, including poor people, decide for themselves what their priorities are. What a concept.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Define nice things.

According to the two guys I picked up last night it was the hot ladies at Isabella's Kitchen and when we pulled up they were correct. Except one of the ladies had ordered a Black Car/SUV ride which is two to three times the cost as the X ride these guys showed up in.

[DenvertoLA]

does anyone know what is planned at the Fed Reserve downtown? On the gov's site development map it highlights the block as having an under review project.

"Under Review
Address: 1020 16th St.
Log Number: 2019PM0000373"

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

does anyone know what is planned at the Fed Reserve downtown? On the gov's site development map it highlights the block as having an under review project.

"Under Review
Address: 1020 16th St.
Log Number: 2019PM0000373"

Yeah, I got really excited when I saw that too - but digging further it is just a truck port and some parking changes... meh.

[Denverbone]

If someone were to propose a new supertall skyscraper for downtown Denver, where would it go? Downtown is quickly losing it's surface parking lots to medium height buildings. (I like the infill, but we really could use some actual skyscrapers) Just saying - or whining.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Denverbone

If someone were to propose a new supertall skyscraper for downtown Denver, where would it go? Downtown is quickly losing it's surface parking lots to medium height buildings. (I like the infill, but we really could use some actual skyscrapers) Just saying - or whining.

A proposal was leaked last year for an 80-story tower at 650 17th Street - the corner of 17th and California (IMO the visual epicenter of the Denver skyline) - but the project never materialized and fell fate to not having secured the proper land acquisition from Paradise Land Company (Buzz Geller). Notwithstanding that snafu, the project still had little chance of succeeding but was at least something we could pin our hopes on for a little while.

What I found most troubling was the massive opposition this 1,000' "trophy building" received from the NIMBY crowd - arguing it was too tall for Downtown Denver. 7News (ABC) even ran an incredibly biased story that posited all of the typical trope for opposing a project of this scale (too tall, too dense, increased traffic, blocking the mountain views, not in character/context with the surrounding area, etc.). For a city that has witnessed such incredible growth over the last several decades, it's extremely sobering to contemplate that Republic Plaza has been Denver's tallest building for 35 years.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Denverbone

If someone were to propose a new supertall skyscraper for downtown Denver, where would it go? Downtown is quickly losing it's surface parking lots to medium height buildings. (I like the infill, but we really could use some actual skyscrapers) Just saying - or whining.

I was just in Austin and the number of new tall buildings there is impressive for a metro much smaller than Denver. Lots of great-looking apartment and condo towers all over downtown. Not sure why we can’t have a similar number of new towers, we have a ton of population growth and a booming tech industry along with high property values that necessitate building density. Yet we still have tons of low and mid-rises going up.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by BG918

I was just in Austin and the number of new tall buildings there is impressive for a metro much smaller than Denver. Lots of great-looking apartment and condo towers all over downtown. Not sure why we can’t have a similar number of new towers, we have a ton of population growth and a booming tech industry along with high property values that necessitate building density. Yet we still have tons of low and mid-rises going up.

Developers build in neighborhoods that are hot - they go where the demand is - and the hot neighborhoods in Denver are zoned for mid-rise. The only 'hood that was zoned for actual skyscrapers throughout most of this boom was the CBD, and it's been relatively cool compared to RiNo, LoHi, Union Station, etc. I'm looking forward to River Mile getting off the ground and I'm hopeful Golden Triangle will get zoned for taller point towers - which it looks like it might. Arapahoe Square also has high-rise potential now that it has been zoned for taller point towers. Hopefully that neighborhood gets hot.

I have a feeling we'll see an actual skyline-changing high-rise boom next cycle. We'll be poised for it. River Mile will be to the next cycle as Union Station was to this one, and when developers start tinkering around in Arapahoe Square and GT again, they'll hopefully take advantage of the new zoning and we'll get some point towers to broaden the skyline.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Developers build in neighborhoods that are hot - they go where the demand is - and the hot neighborhoods in Denver are zoned for mid-rise. The only 'hood that was zoned for actual skyscrapers throughout most of this boom was the CBD, and it's been relatively cool compared to RiNo, LoHi, Union Station, etc. I'm looking forward to River Mile getting off the ground and I'm hopeful Golden Triangle will get zoned for taller point towers - which it looks like it might. Arapahoe Square also has high-rise potential now that it has been zoned for taller point towers. Hopefully that neighborhood gets hot.

I have a feeling we'll see an actual skyline-changing high-rise boom next cycle. We'll be poised for it. River Mile will be to the next cycle as Union Station was to this one, and when developers start tinkering around in Arapahoe Square and GT again, they'll hopefully take advantage of the new zoning and we'll get some point towers to broaden the skyline.

I totally agree here. This last boom was really about giving rise to the Union Station neighborhood, the birth and rise of new neighborhoods near downtown, and laying the foundation for future growth. To be fair, it's not like we didn't get any skyscrapers. I actually am pretty happy with 1144 and it was very exciting to see it rise into the skyline after moving here. With all of the infill and plans for what has been mentioned, I am pretty optimistic about Denver's future urban footprint.

[TakeFive]

No tall buildings here but...

As developers raze parts of Brighton Boulevard, this property owner has something else in mind
Nov 11, 2019 By: Lance Hernandez - Denver7

He said he's not in a hurry to get them all done. "We're not developers. We're family-owned businesses, so we go slower and march to a different drummer than a developer does, primarily because of money," he said. Burgess said one of his buildings under renovation is already leased out.

What motivates Larry Burgess, long-time property owner.

The property owner told Denver7 that what he is doing is a nod to history and to the work ethic of families that operated industrial shops in the neighborhood for generations. "The work ethic was for their family and for themselves," he said. "Today, the work ethic of the corporation is different from what I'm expressing there."

Colten Janssen said the neighborhood has great character. "I'll tell you what I like most about this area is just the art culture that's in this area — the graffiti and murals and stuff like that," he said. "It really embraces the art culture of Denver."

[Valley Highway]

Took a few pictures of Block 162 and want to post them, but I don't see any way of attaching a photo. There are options for sending a URL link, but no way that I can see to simply add a shot from my own computer. (And I did open the photo, copy it and try pasting in this space and that does not work)

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by kemachs

Maybe I'm missing something, but from what I can see, the areas around the transit stations in LT aren't particularly pleasant from an urban perspective. Yes they are higher density in terms of residential, but it doesn't have the integration of retail/housing the same way even Belleview Station does. Now if you're talking about future plans around Lone Tree Station, maybe I can get on board...but we're talking a ways out until that's fully realized.

#1 - within a half mile of each of Lone Tree's existing stations, there is an abundance of housing, office, medical, and yes, even retail and hotels. It's by far the most diverse stop in our system, at the moment. 38th/Blake is coming, the downtown Aurora will one day build out similarly, and the Stapleton station should get there in the next decade. Belleview Station has the potential for some of the LT components and much closer to the station, but missing medical.

#2 - Have you seen the plans for the Lone Tree east of I25? If notIt's like an urban planner's dream if it comes to fruition as envisioned. Incredible density relative to it's suburban location and a good mix of uses. There's nothing wrong IMO with greenfield sprawl like Lone Tree IF those areas are keeping workers and people in that area and not forcing them to drive everywhere. If sprawl has to happen (and it will) this is what it should look like. Greenbelts are a great idea as well to protect urban areas from combining into a massive super city a la DC to NYC, but only if density is provided for within the confines of the greenbelt.

https://ridgegate.com/

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

it's now $10.50 to take the A line that will probably be delayed from downtown to the airport.

an uber with door to door service is $30.



until we're ready to make some hard choices about uber, rtd will continue to languish. not only are they ripping off their drivers, but they're also destroying almost every public transportation system they can. that's all part of the plan of course. free labor = disaster for us all.

stop uber or shut up.

RTD's prices are a joke and if not the highest, among the highest in the country. While there's no science or data behind it, I believe that's a main reason for their ridership issues. As they dig their heels in for a poorly planned system, they raise prices to maintain revenue. Local planning hasn't done a damn thing to help them though.

Regarding ride shares, until a better alternative comes along people will continue utilizing ride share services. I,

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by laniroj

RTD's prices are a joke and if not the highest, among the highest in the country. While there's no science or data behind it, I believe that's a main reason for their ridership issues. As they dig their heels in for a poorly planned system, they raise prices to maintain revenue. Local planning hasn't done a damn thing to help them though.

Regarding ride shares, until a better alternative comes along people will continue utilizing ride share services. I,

The latest fare hike was to offset the low-income fare programs advocates pressed for.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by laniroj

RTD's prices are a joke and if not the highest, among the highest in the country. While there's no science or data behind it, I believe that's a main reason for their ridership issues. As they dig their heels in for a poorly planned system, they raise prices to maintain revenue. Local planning hasn't done a damn thing to help them though.

Regarding ride shares, until a better alternative comes along people will continue utilizing ride share services. I,

Fares coupled with shitty service are likely the two biggest drivers. Let's also remember that RTD has bent over backwards to accommodate two groups over the last few years: the disabled and the poor. From removing 10% of the seats on light rail cars and almost banning strollers to implementing a discount fare program which was the primary driver for the large fare increase last year. A discount program which has issued ~1,500 passes since July. Apparently the advocates like 9to5 are really f**king shitty at getting the word out to sign people up for a program that most people took it up the ass to fund.

RTD isn't a transit agency for the metro area, it's a mobility provider of last resort. That's the Boards' mindset.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

RTD's prices are a joke and if not the highest, among the highest in the country.

Do you ever buy anything on sale or do you go into the store and say, "No, I want to pay the 'retail' price before the discount."

According to RTD last year they had 97.6 million boardings. RTD also reported $143 million in revenue (against $777 million in operating expenses for a cool subsidy of $634 million).

The amount RTD collected per boarding was an average of $1.47 per rider.

Originally Posted by laniroj

While there's no science or data behind it, I believe that's a main reason for their ridership issues. As they dig their heels in for a poorly planned system, they raise prices to maintain revenue.

As PLANSIT points out, the fare increase(s) were to accommodate what wong nicely describes.

But there's plenty of data; after RTD's fare increase in January:

• 1st quarter bus ridership was up 11%
• 1st quarter light rail ridership was down 11%
• 1st quarter commuter rail was up 4%

After the 2nd quarter when light rail started to bounce back, the year-to-date numbers:

• Bus ridership up 8.5%
• Light rail ridership down 6.7%
• Commuter rail was up over 17%

Total RTD ridership for all modes after two quarters was 48.5 million (trips) while in 2018 after two quarters total ridership was 49.0 million.

Just a guess that by the end of the year total ridership will equal 2018 or even surpass it by a little.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

RTD isn't a transit agency for the metro area, it's a mobility provider of last resort. That's the Boards' mindset.

That's an excellent point that deserves amplification.

Historically, the conventional wisdom was that in large and (very) dense cities transit would provide cheap access for all 'the Poor's' who lived in 'tenement' housing and needed access to Manhattan, for example.

Denver has never been more than a low to moderate density area. Go back 20 years or more and what was unique about downtown Denver was the out-sized number or percentage of government jobs when you include federal, state and city. Government jobs certainly have their benefits but high-pay is not normally one of them. RTD served as a good cheap way to get downtown to one's job.

But a lot has changed in the last 20 to 30 years. Downtown Denver is evolving into a place with crazy good density. Problems is The Poor's have been kicked to the curb in the suburbs. Given that the Poor's generally work in retail, service and blue collar jobs Big Bertha bus-routes have little value for most of them.

Almost all of the 'working poor' have mobile phones. In Phoenix I even notice homeless people on their phones. Oftentimes, the 'working poor' are more conscientious about getting to work on time so they drive cars, ride with friends, (only) occasionally use ride-share and if they are one of the lucky ones who can take advantage of transit they will; but that's the exception. A $3, a $5 or even $15 bus ride is not the issue; getting to where they need to go (and on time) is the problem.

As for all the new jobs and residents downtown the tech-bros often prefer to NOT ride the bus.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by laniroj

#1 - within a half mile of each of Lone Tree's existing stations, there is an abundance of housing, office, medical, and yes, even retail and hotels. It's by far the most diverse stop in our system, at the moment. 38th/Blake is coming, the downtown Aurora will one day build out similarly, and the Stapleton station should get there in the next decade. Belleview Station has the potential for some of the LT components and much closer to the station, but missing medical.

#2 - Have you seen the plans for the Lone Tree east of I25? If notIt's like an urban planner's dream if it comes to fruition as envisioned. Incredible density relative to it's suburban location and a good mix of uses. There's nothing wrong IMO with greenfield sprawl like Lone Tree IF those areas are keeping workers and people in that area and not forcing them to drive everywhere. If sprawl has to happen (and it will) this is what it should look like. Greenbelts are a great idea as well to protect urban areas from combining into a massive super city a la DC to NYC, but only if density is provided for within the confines of the greenbelt.

https://ridgegate.com/

I'm curious to see how that Lone Tree development turns out. The land over there is very hilly, which could make it more interesting than other urban developments.

On the negative side, I work in LT and live in Stapleton. Traffic is horrendous already getting down there. Yeah, I've taken the R line to work and it's a failure. Well, the northern end is a failure in Aurora. South of the Florida station, it's fast and runs as it should but it takes about an hour and 15 min. for me door to door, and costs $6. In heavy traffic, I can do it in 50 minutes and only costs me $2 round trip in gas. I can see I25 being gridlock southbound in the morning from 225 south, which it isn't today.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I'm curious to see how that Lone Tree development turns out. The land over there is very hilly, which could make it more interesting than other urban developments.

On the negative side, I work in LT and live in Stapleton. Traffic is horrendous already getting down there. Yeah, I've taken the R line to work and it's a failure. Well, the northern end is a failure in Aurora. South of the Florida station, it's fast and runs as it should but it takes about an hour and 15 min. for me door to door, and costs $6. In heavy traffic, I can do it in 50 minutes and only costs me $2 round trip in gas. I can see I25 being gridlock southbound in the morning from 225 south, which it isn't today.

That's interesting. The R Line should have been routed along I-225 for better speed and if Aurora wanted the "city center shuttle" that should have been separate and Aurora should have had to pay for a good portion of the cost.

The R Line should actually run from the Belleview Station then along I-225 up to Peoria Station.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Ryan, do you know if the trains in Chicago is a PPP or purely publicly funded? Could this be the source of the problem...?

The blue line is not a PPP. And that is not at all the source of the problem. The A Line is RTD’s most reliable. It’s just that criticizing RTD has become a hobby for many of us. So much so, the details no longer matter.