DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[CherryCreek]

*removed*

Since I don't see a lot of homeless living high on the hog, I suspect what it really says is that there's a large "homeless services" bureaucracy that ends up burning most of the funds allocated to help the homeless and a relatively small amount of the money actually ends up directly benefiting homeless.

Would love to know how to better spend the relatively large sum we are already spending, at least on a per capita homeless basis.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by iNfill

Unless you build them downtown for in a highly saught after area, how many would actually go? Like if you did it out in the plains. Did UT stop all other services for the homeless?

If these numbers are correct it seems like a decent option. Even just tiny homes - but the land would have to be cheap and would it work in Denver...

Utah declared victory and rested on it's laurels and the homeless population has since spiked as they stopped building housing. However, it didn't just cease support services for the homeless, as such services are a vital part of the Housing First strategy. You tie an individual to a home and you can then loop them into services so that there's a decent chance that the negative cycle the person is stuck in is broken. But, shelters just don't go away, SLC is closed it's single large shelter and opened up three small shelters to still provide emergency shelter services.

What you need with housing first is a dedicated funding stream that you borrow on initially to ramp up your housing, coupled with a reoccurring source of funds for operations, and that also will expand as the program grows. I personally balk at $55M in tax increase to do so, but I can see a smaller amount making sense.

Hell, kill the dumb food desert tax and use that tax revenue for homeless services instead.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Since I don't see a lot of homeless living high on the hog, I suspect what it really says is that there's a large "homeless services" bureaucracy that ends up burning most of the funds allocated to help the homeless and a relatively small amount of the money actually ends up directly benefiting homeless.

Would love to know how to better spend the relatively large sum we are already spending, at least on a per capita homeless basis.

It looks like Salt Lake City spends somewhere around $18M-20M annually on homelessness including police, medical care, services, housing, etc. I wonder how Denver compares on that metric? My gut says we're way short on that.

SLC and Utah as whole spent ~$62M to redo the shelter system in SLC with the result being fewer shelter beds, but greater resources at the new shelters such as support services, treatment, 24-hour facilities, etc. Realistically, Denver has a long way to go to see that kind of investment. However, it was also the state government that contributed significant amounts towards this program whereas the state in Colorado hasn't done all that much.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

More and more are being built year over year. And there is certainly money to be made. Our neighbors do well with AirBnB. It may not increase the resale price of your home right away since accurate appraisals are a challenge given the lack of comparable properties. But over time this will improve. Plus, it's not always about turning a profit. I could see one being a viable solution for a place for my mom to live when my dad passes or for my brother to live if he ever leaves his wife.

I'd be curious to see figures of permitted and built ADUs in town. Last time I checked its a very paltry figure. Real Estate development is only about turning a profit. I personally think they are great, I think every neighborhood should allow ADUs by right. However, I don't see them moving the needle much for desperately needed supply of missing middle homes. Rowhomes, Duplex, Chicago Flat style buildings is what we need. The city has far too little zoning that allows those forms.

[coolmandan03]

*removed*

But then how would you request an additional $55M to help the homeless?

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

ADUs are great, and in some parts of town they're all we need, but in a rational world a place like Curtis Park--literally walkable to downtown--should be predominantly walkup apartments. It should be at least as dense as Capitol Hill. Really it should be as dense as SF's Nob Hill or Vancouver's West End.

Like, one of Denver's (and many US cities') key problems is that you go straight from downtown to neighborhoods that are structurally SFH. I'm sympathetic to the desire to preserve historic architecture, but we need to find a way to let these downtown-adjacent neighborhoods do the job that downtown-adjacent neighborhoods are supposed to do.

Your argument would have a little more validity if there wasn’t already space for probably a million people or more even closer to the city center. Why are you picking on curtis park (which is already filling in)https://businessden.com/2020/01/20/project-snapshot-ava-rino/ ) while vast undeveloped lots rot in the real city core? A square is closer, vacant, and could have space for a million people.

You don’t have to densify just because it’s cool to say.


And please stop perpetuating the same lies about curtis park and other neighborhoods being sfh. These streetcar neighborhoods are jam packed with old duplexes, townhouses, row houses, and conversions.

And now adus will be moving in.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

ADUs are great, and in some parts of town they're all we need, but in a rational world a place like Curtis Park--literally walkable to downtown--should be predominantly walkup apartments. It should be at least as dense as Capitol Hill. Really it should be as dense as SF's Nob Hill or Vancouver's West End.

Like, one of Denver's (and many US cities') key problems is that you go straight from downtown to neighborhoods that are structurally SFH. I'm sympathetic to the desire to preserve historic architecture, but we need to find a way to let these downtown-adjacent neighborhoods do the job that downtown-adjacent neighborhoods are supposed to do.

Curtis Park is the oldest subdivision in the city. It's where the first residents were stretching out. Curtis Park itself is the first park we have. The architecture in Curtis Park is filled with styles that predate the squares that are so popular around the city. This neighborhood dates back to 1870.

It's also worth noting since you conveniently ignore, RiNo is getting huge. RiNo runs adjacent to Curtis Park so what we're left with is just what you're asking for. We'll have loads of apartments right on the edge of the historic neighborhood that continues to get squeezed. Check google maps. You can walk from Cutis Park to new, basically endless housing options in RiNo in about 3 blocks. I just can't imagine what else you could want out of this, aside from pushing your blog's agenda or whatever it is you're pushing.

When I talk about destroying the neighborhood, it's not hyperbole. You can't bring back the oldest neighborhood in the city once it's gone. I'll repeat again since you don't seem to know, this neighborhood has plenty of mixed housing dating from old days. It's not just rich couples living high on the hog (on their tiny lots).

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I like to think of myself as a YIMBY but it seems that Denver has a lot of land to target that is far less efficiently used in the urban core before Curtis Park becomes a priority. Denver could more than double it's urban core population with infill in RiNo, Arapahoe Square, Golden Triangle, CBD, and eventually River Mile.

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

I'd be curious to see figures of permitted and built ADUs in town. Last time I checked its a very paltry figure. Real Estate development is only about turning a profit. I personally think they are great, I think every neighborhood should allow ADUs by right. However, I don't see them moving the needle much for desperately needed supply of missing middle homes. Rowhomes, Duplex, Chicago Flat style buildings is what we need. The city has far too little zoning that allows those forms.

The city does have far too little zoning that allows it. And the number being built is paltry, but it is increasing. It's not going to match any new subdivision but it doubled from 2013 to 18. Yes, it's a small number to double, but that's still a huge increase. And it's certainly not just for the "Tesla crowd" as you suggest.
Realestate development may be about turning a profit. But I don't consider one person building one ADU "realestate development" any more than I would use that term to describe someone putting an addition on the house. Sometimes it's about what the homeowner needs. Consider this program in west Denver.

[The Dirt]

Even if ADUs were allowed in more of the city, they are still very difficult to make money on if that's your goal. If your goal is to have more space or put your mother in law there in the short term then it may make sense, but you're looking at spending at least 250K to put up an ADU, so it would take over 8 years to recoup the cost if you're charging 2,500 in rent and not factoring in time, effort, and money spent on maintenance of the ADU. Allowing existing homes to be subdivided into duplexes or quads would have much more of an impact and would end up saving many homes from scraping.

[mr1138]

For me I guess this comes down to what are we really trying to save? The single-family character of the neighborhood or its specific architectural history? Because that should inform the tools used. Does anybody know if the Curtis Park Historic District prevents scrape-offs on every property subject to design review or only for the individual landmarks?

The existing RH-2.5 zoning appears to be pretty prescriptive. It acknowledges the historic duplexes and rowhomes that are already there, but doesn't really allow for a transition to a more urban character - it pretty much just locks in place what is already there. Those Chicago flats we have been talking about can be more like 3 stories or higher.

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by mr1138

For me I guess this comes down to what are we really trying to save? The single-family character of the neighborhood or its specific architectural history? Because that should inform the tools used. Does anybody know if the Curtis Park Historic District prevents scrape-offs on every property subject to design review or only for the individual landmarks?

Properties can be scraped inside the district as long as they are "non contributing". This means building not built in the defined period of importance, somewhere from 1880 to 1910, I think. It also means buildings that have been altered to a point of no longer having historical value. But, any new building is subject to design review to ensure they reflect the historic character of the neighborhood. This does allow for multi-story buildings if they are allowed by zoning and does not mean all new building have to look old. Consider the new United Way building on Park Ave and the townhomes on 26th and Champa that mimic rowhomes from the 1800s.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

Properties can be scraped inside the district as long as they are "non contributing". This means building not built in the defined period of importance, somewhere from 1880 to 1910, I think. It also means buildings that have been altered to a point of no longer having historical value. But, any new building is subject to design review to ensure they reflect the historic character of the neighborhood. This does allow for multi-story buildings if they are allowed by zoning and does not mean all new building have to look old. Consider the new United Way building on Park Ave and the townhomes on 26th and Champa that mimic rowhomes from the 1800s.

Thanks for the info!

It sounds like that kind of historic district has some serious power when it comes to protecting contributing structures. There's nothing invalid about streetcar-suburb style density, but as many of us have pointed out, neighborhoods in other cities seem to find a middle-ground between this kind of density and full-on city-center density that is higher than what we see in Curtis Park. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like the whole area could be up-zoned and the contributing structures would still be pretty solidly protected.

It then starts to come down to the little details of what is allowed by both the zoning and the historic protections - like the space between buildings or whether you can build a 3.5 story rowhome-style structure complete with a traditional stoop or possibly a rooftop deck or maybe a 5-story multi-unit building (not possible with RH-2.5 zoning as far as I know). I also wonder how the historic district feels about add-ons to old houses like the one I posted a few pages ago from Cap Hill. Or something like this. Again here, it would be about both what is allowed under historic protections and also what the zoning will allow - it wouldn't be possible to add retail on a parcel enshrined with exclusively residential zoning.

Edit: The notion of something being "altered to a point of no longer having historical value" has always struck me as being extremely subjective. By that definition, would many of the great Renaissance or Baroque facades that were tacked on to Medieval buildings in Europe be considered as having "altered the historical value"? What about something more recent like the Ellie Caulkins Opera House? At what point do we determine that altering or adding on to a building - the way most cities have grown for millennia - has "damaged" its integrity? Kind of a rhetorical point there but food for thought.

[The Dirt]

When you guys have a minute (or 90), I highly recommend this podcast, especially this episode that talks about neighborhood defenders and the adverse effects on our built environment.
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/voxs-the-weeds/e/66321406

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Edit: The notion of something being "altered to a point of no longer having historical value" has always struck me as being extremely subjective.

I agree, but it's kind of has to be. That's why there are criteria defined by the Landmark Preservation Commission on which they base their decisions. It's not the best, but is there an alternative that will allow the protections to exist and at the same time allowing for new construction?

[TakeFive]

As Office Jobs Expand, Denver Scrambles To Compete With Top Talent Hubs
January 30, 2020 By Kelcey McClung - Bisnow

Denver’s office-using job growth is continuing, which should translate into 3.5M SF of tenant demand over the next 36 months, JLL Research Director Thomas Jaroszewski told Bisnow. But it’s falling behind other major metro areas in the country, which compete for the same talent.

JLL forecasts that Denver may not keep pace with Austin, Texas, Nashville, Dallas, Phoenix, Seattle, Salt Lake City and Portland in the next half decade. Austin will likely be the biggest winner, according to these projections, seeing more than 10% growth over the next five years. Dallas and Portland aren’t forecast to be too far behind.

Be suspicious of all the data-driven analysis and its presumptions or concluding anything that's all that relevant or meaningful.

Relevant to Denver I thought this was a solid observation.

Alternative and emerging submarkets, such as Denver’s RiNo neighborhood, will likely see strong activity, as will walkable and transit-accessible locations. These options are becoming increasingly popular as developers further adjust new product to meet tenant expectations and preferences. Stiles added that this goes beyond just aesthetics to include social engagement, employee and environmental wellness and aesthetics will be equally important in future project development.

This would include all the TOD being planned like Gates etc.

There is always a "But" of course.

“As long as the state and local governments continue to be pro-business and pro-[growth], I think we have a really long runway,” Joblon said.

[DenvertoLA]

This is a fun skim. Hopefully it results in taller, leaner buildings with affordable units. I just wish there was an incentive for building crowns or unique rooflines.

http://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/den...t2_Zoning_Framework_and_Alternatives.pdf

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

This is a fun skim. Hopefully it results in taller, leaner buildings with affordable units. I just wish there was an incentive for building crowns or unique rooflines.

http://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/den...t2_Zoning_Framework_and_Alternatives.pdf

That’s a contradiction. You can’t have taller, leaner, and more affordable. One factor (or two) have to give.

[The Dirt]

I'm tired of people with saying that bulk is a detriment to walkability. Width, sure, but what does height have anything to do with it?

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That’s a contradiction. You can’t have taller, leaner, and more affordable. One factor (or two) have to give.

If the developers wants to max out the available bonuses, yea a building could be leaner than a barge and have affordable units. My phrasing was exclusive to one building though, just more of those components in many projects are just as good.