DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well the little guys whining about rezoning risk and environmental risk and land price risk and [...] should go get accounting jobs anyways. They’re not ever putting a dent in affordability with their 1-2 projects per year. I’m interested in Forest City’s perspective or Revesco’s perspective. Their scale of building is what helps our affordability problem. Laniroj’s land scarcity problem is a capital and risk problem.

So I've come around to a more modest up-zoning ie 'missing middle' since it's unlikely to lead to wholesale change. It's more likely to start with the lower hanging fruit. While it's not likely to change much with respect to affordability, more is better than less, certainly.

Take (most of) West Wash Park for example. A zoning change to 'medium' density feels appropriate. Here is where NIMBY's exert too much resistance. Within Curtis Park, Five Points, etc I can easily envision carve-outs for medium density. So what if it's more of a pain.

I also would favor specific 'historical' zoning areas or pockets.

You're land scarcity points are well taken. It's like people don't even recognize the amount of land within RiNo which will easily take a couple of decades to build out. Add all these other areas that are being cleaned up etc. and again there's decades of developable land.

[twister244]

My neighborhood news letter had a nice little piece on the status of the stadium district plans. Looks like things are slowly moving forward. Nothing too groundbreaking here, but nice to see an update.

https://jpun.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/jpun-feb2020.pdf

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Cue the daily bulldurhamer post calling everyone he disagrees with a racist.

oh, so you get to call everyone a racist.


the reality is that you don't know what you're talking about. there's no evidence at all that a massive upzone will help poor people at all. in fact, minneapolis is starting to realize they totally fucked up and have done nothing to address displacement.


https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2019/05/h...-with-housing-affordability-in-the-city/

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

She exploited the economic ignorance of the masses by riding on the coattails of AOC and reviving political rhetoric which should have died with the fall of the Berlin Wall. I've tried to keep an open mind when listening to her but it is hard work navigating through her endless pseudointellectual, post-modern drivel.

she's right about displacement and not one solution being offered here will help with any of that.

the only real solution is that we need everybody working to earn a living wage, but nobody is interested in that. we'll ring the housing crisis alarm so those poor developers dealing with such great scarcity can build build build while cirrus gets the opportunity to walk to coors field since everybody should get to live super duper close to the 16th street mall.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Do you think that a goal worth pursuing is to allow nurses, teachers, waiters/waitresses, and other service workers to live in Denver? Because this is what we're talking about. We're not talking about allowing every millionaire to live in Cherry Hills. We're talking about working class individuals being able to live within reasonable distance of their jobs rather than paying a huge chunk of their paycheck to live close or live farther away and pay a lot more for transportation costs. Affordability and scarcity hits these folks first and hardest because they can't compete with higher earners. I don't know what "construction anarchy" is, but upzoning the whole city would actually release pressure on gentrifying areas and allow more homes to be built in rich areas, which have already been dipped in amber by NIMBYs. I never thought I'd be on a skyscraper page forum long enough to see a majority of folks arguing for less housing.

what actual evidence do you have that any of what you say is true? upzoning across the city will bring waitresses homes close to bubba gumps? data from a city that has done just as your proposed is showing the opposite to be true.

but you're REALLY sure about this, so i'm curious why.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Right! I thought I was going crazy. But this is a trending mentality. If you look at a lot of comments on news articles with high ticket items such River Mile and anything else development related, you see these comments everywhere. There's a larger-than-I-would-have-hoped-for crowd opposing things like McGregor Square, FFS. These people think that all the construction is causing rents / home prices to go up when in reality, it's pretty much a simple supply / demand market game. Rents are leveling off because of all the supply coming online.

In addition, all these buildings we said would be 'affordable housing in 5 years' are actually more affordable, what a shock. Hell, I live in one myself that we said, 'yep that'll be affordable in 5 years'. What are some other arguments? 'I'm sick of all these luxury apartments.' If all apartments are luxury none of them are, it's just the new building standard. It's all a marketing scheme. The list goes on..

What I fear most is that this crowd, and I even work with a chunk of these sad people, is that they would bend over backwards to get growth caps on the ballot. That scares the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 out of me.

#RantOver

so you admit prices have stabilized without the great upzone. interesting!

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

...the reality is that you don't know what you're talking about. there's no evidence at all that a massive upzone will help poor people at all. in fact, minneapolis is starting to realize they totally fucked up and have done nothing to address displacement.

https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2019/05/h...-with-housing-affordability-in-the-city/

Interesting timing as I just happen to have spent time on the Minneapolis Business Journal, just curious about what was happening. As an aside Hines is going to build two towers including a 36-story apartment project on land they've owned since 2012.

Now that Minneapolis got what they wanted and they're the toast of the whole country, many are now acknowledging the fallacies and weaknesses with their supposed magical fix. What has become the "hot topic generic up-zoning fix" isn't working and isn't expected to achieve what they promised. At best it will add a few upscale options here and there but nothing approaching affordable units.

What's especially noteworthy is the analysis done by Yonah Freemark.

A 2019 study of upzoning in some Chicago neighborhoods found some truth in that critique and highlighted the long-term nature of such zoning changes. The researcher behind the study, Yonah Freemark, who is a doctoral candidate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, analyzed housing prices and construction permits in areas where Chicago began upzoning in 2013 and 2015. He found increasing property taxes, but little change in the areas’ housing supply as as a result of the zoning changes.

BTW, our esteemed Monitor, Cirrus, lives in Northern Virginia and knows Yonah Freemark. Cirrus, bunt, wong, (and others) became buddies when attending CU.

It turns out that Minneapolis set a permitting record of $2.1 billion last year. Just as in Denver is basically all high density stuff.

Thanks for the link. That's a rather long but good read.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

what actual evidence do you have that any of what you say is true? upzoning across the city will bring waitresses homes close to bubba gumps? data from a city that has done just as your proposed is showing the opposite to be true.

but you're REALLY sure about this, so i'm curious why.

This is the greatest fallacy in urban debates -- the idea that some other city with countless differences in every way but one similarity will somehow prove something. It's the opposite of scientific method...there's no control group to be sure of the effect in the other city, and the two situations are generally different on many levels...the lesson is only anecdotal at best.

But we can see evidence of the pieces. A city with code capacity for tons of growth will have cheaper land than one with limited capacity, which will enable cheaper housing development if all else is equal.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Interesting timing as I just happen to have spent time on the Minneapolis Business Journal, just curious about what was happening. As an aside Hines is going to build two towers including a 36-story apartment project on land they've owned since 2012.

Now that Minneapolis got what they wanted and they're the toast of the whole country, many are now acknowledging the fallacies and weaknesses with their supposed magical fix. What has become the "hot topic generic up-zoning fix" isn't working and isn't expected to achieve what they promised. At best it will add a few upscale options here and there but nothing approaching affordable units.

Building affordable units is only one way you can be more affordable. Another, which is generally far more important, is to have enough supply that the less-desirable older units become affordable. Like 1970s apartments outside of the prime districts.

The same dynamic makes things easier for middle class renters and buyers too. People who buy luxury housing are generally moving out of something else, with a domino effect that affects every level of affordability.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Building affordable units is only one way you can be more affordable. Another, which is generally far more important, is to have enough supply that the less-desirable older units become affordable. Like 1970s apartments outside of the prime districts.

The same dynamic makes things easier for middle class renters and buyers too. People who buy luxury housing are generally moving out of something else, with a domino effect that affects every level of affordability.

I agree with the first part although location can still be an overriding factor that at least lessens what you wish for.

With respect to "scientific methods" on these topics the best you can do is make observations and draw correlations - remembering that correlation =/= causation. There's simply too many variables and miscellaneous dynamics at play.

While I'll buy the trickle down 'in theory' it doesn't always work as assumed because again location differences or other variables. It's not unlike when I assume the Avalanche will easily beat one of the worst hockey teams, they lose. Life (regardless of theories) is what happens while you're making other plans.

[mhays]

Where's your evidence that it doesn't work? (Apartment trickle-down, not the widely-discredited taxation theory)

I hope you won't say "because places build housing and still get more expensive." Obviously that's not the point...if their prices are rising faster than development cost, it's because they haven't built as much housing as demand called for.

[TakeFive]

More sales reported by BusinessDen

But it doesn't appear that the sale of the Ink Coffee building in RiNo or a sale in Whittier of the Whittier Pub building is for redevelopment, at least in the near term.

[TakeFive]

It's simply a matter of supply and demand, right?

Originally Posted by mhays

Where's your evidence that it doesn't work?

I keep hearing about a shortage of land blah, blah. I'll give you a HUGE amount of vacant land and let's see what happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stapleton,_Denver

The former airport 4,700 acres (19 km2) site 10 minutes from Downtown Denver is now being redeveloped by Forest City Enterprises new urbanist project. Construction began in 2001...

Now referred to as the Stapleton Community, it contains nine neighborhoods, nine schools public/private, 50 parks, several shopping and business districts, and a visitor center. Since April 2016, Stapleton has been connected to the Denver metro area by RTD's A line, a recently opened commuter rail service.

So as Stapleton has built out and more housing units were added each year did it become more and more affordable or less affordable?

And there's the fallacy of a simplistic view of supply and demand.

Had Stapleton been required to include 25% designated affordable housing then at least it would have 25% affordable housing but it didn't require that and it doesn't have that.

Would adding more housing units to neighborhood X be a bad thing. No; and if you added a bunch of micro-housing unit-buildings then you'd likely have more affordable housing. But this is what Stonemans_rowJ said:

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

There have been lots of small 1 bedroom units and studios added, many probably vacant.

The average millennial is now, what, 32 or 33 years old, many are married or marrying, many are having children. This demographic is not looking for a 1 bedroom apartment in Sun Valley.

If you want to add 'missing middle' units that's fine but if you think that will automatically make a neighborhood more affordable you could be a pothead.

[Ich]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It's simply a matter of supply and demand, right?

I keep hearing about a shortage of land blah, blah. I'll give you a HUGE amount of vacant land and let's see what happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stapleton,_Denver

So as Stapleton has built out and more housing units were added each year did it become more and more affordable or less affordable?

And there's the fallacy of a simplistic view of supply and demand.

Had Stapleton been required to include 25% designated affordable housing then at least it would have 25% affordable housing but it didn't require that and it doesn't have that.

Would adding more housing units to neighborhood X be a bad thing. No; and if you added a bunch of micro-housing unit-buildings then you'd likely have more affordable housing. But this is what Stonemans_rowJ said:

If you want to add 'missing middle' units that's fine but if you think that will automatically make a neighborhood more affordable you could be a pothead.

How is that a fallacy of supply and demand?

As less land was available to develop in Stapleton, housing prices increased? Sounds about right to me
Imagine if the majority of Stapleton was zoned for higher density than mostly SFH? Even Lowry was a missed opportunity in that regard.

And if anyone comes across as pothead on here, it’s you lol

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Ich

How is that a fallacy of supply and demand?

As less land was available to develop in Stapleton, housing prices increased? Sounds about right to me
Imagine if the majority of Stapleton was zoned for higher density than mostly SFH? Even Lowry was a missed opportunity in that regard.

I understand that this stuff is a bit like politics or religion; you can debate forever and ever. People tend to believe what they want to believe and there's lots of variables that provide for differing viewpoints.

With respect to Stapleton (or Lowry) they make babies there; it's family friendly; that's why they have all those schools. Are you suggesting that Denver should be family unfriendly? A whole lot of people who make up Denver want to have a home for their family? There's actually neighborhoods all over Denver where that exists.

Aside from open space which I value highly, Stapleton has dang good land efficiency all things considered.

Understand that Forest Properties bought the whole shebang. If Forest increased the costs for buildable lots over time well that happens everywhere. It goes more to the time value of money or if your a ZeroHedge guy the ever shrinking value of the dollar. Construction costs also tend to go higher over time. It's the world we've always lived in.

My own view is I celebrate families. It's how the cranky Millennials become so notorious.

[mhays]

TakeFive, all that is completely beside the point.

Land in the urban core is expensive (rising at double-figure percentage rates per year apparently). That's related to a lack of supply.

[bulldurhamer]

Has anybody here bothered to search for rental options under $1000 in 80205? Here’s a hint. There are loads of them and the prices are dropping.

But let’s not let that get in the way of some groupthink demanding change!

Turns out your waitresses can live wherever they want, despite the loads if misinformation you’ll read here.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by mhays

This is the greatest fallacy in urban debates -- the idea that some other city with countless differences in every way but one similarity will somehow prove something. It's the opposite of scientific method...there's no control group to be sure of the effect in the other city, and the two situations are generally different on many levels...the lesson is only anecdotal at best.

But we can see evidence of the pieces. A city with code capacity for tons of growth will have cheaper land than one with limited capacity, which will enable cheaper housing development if all else is equal.

Evidence in Denver from the last two years clearly shows that building more supply is doing the trick. Prices are down and central affordable options are plentiful. Oh, and that supply is being added in appropriate locations rather than haphazardly tearing down historic neighborhoods just because someone in DC says we have to.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You're the man! Your point about Skyland is well taken.


The way that laniroj talks is also what makes people very nervous about developers. He wants his cake and to eat it too - not that it is unreasonable from a developers perspective.

The City and the powers-that-be need to continue to define the rules and everybody that wants to live and work in Denver will find their way and a place to live.

Queue the greedy evil developer from TakeFive - I've met plenty of you over the years at the hundreds of public meetings I've participated in, led, succeeded in and suffered through. I know your kind well (yes that's an assumption).

What I believe is what Cirrus articulates so well. More folks want to live in all parts of Denver and the Front Range than there is supply to handle. In a hyper local context that Bulldrhamer often brings up, his neighborhood is the target of that action simply because well off people won't stop until they get what they want and they have the resources to do it. That's a fact I believe we all agree on, but shout at me if not. When those well off people can't get into one neighborhood, they go to the next closest/best neighborhood. Queue displacement. What we are making the case for is this, spreading development over a wider area so that specific little niche neighborhoods (who have always been at risk to Bulldrhamer's point) aren't the FOCUS of ALL development. I'm not sure how you all know this WOULDN'T work, because it's only been done in two cities in this country, Houston and Minneapolis (with more PNW locations closely behind). It's a theory that some of us would like to try. If your neighborhood is already getting displaced, it certainly is worth a try IMO. Or you can try to regulate who buys which house and when, which is essentially the path I think Bulldrhamer and TakeFive want to go...but the well off will win that and eventually get what they want...or so that's what I think will happen (mainly because it already is).

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by RyanD

We might as well dedicate this whole thread to TakeFive since the posting ratio is like 4:1.

Btw, the Economy Suites at Belleview Station is almost completely demolished. Saw it on the train this morning.

The good ole motel(s?) at I-25/Evans right by Colorado station are demolished and gone as well. Do you or anyone else know what's going there? We are getting some decent TOD development on the SE line (outside of Lone Tree). FINALLY! It only took 20 years...