DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

And even the metro doesn't have an endless supply of developable land, given challenges of water and infrastructure in our dusty cow town.

Theoretically, the urban centers will keep buying up water rights from farms over in Eastern CO and on the Western slope. Given ag uses something like 90% of our state's water usage, it's not crazy to assume we can grow our population substantially simply by buying up ag water rights (it's all sourced and flows through the front range cities anyway). As farmers grow older many don't have an opportunity to sell or hand down their operations and the water/mineral rights are their retirements. This trend is likely to continue so while water is a limiting resource currently, mainly because municipalities are still catching up trying to get ahead after decades of easy water, they will eventually catch up and water will be very expensive, but there should be plenty of it. AZ and NV are screwed, but CA, UT, and, CO should be ok.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

There are so many examples of an entire several blocks of KB paired homes, or an entire block of Thrive Single Family Houses that all look the same, or courtyards with the same Wonderlands on both sides, virtually identical. With that being said, I still like Stapleton. Back in the 20's an average builder would build like 2-3 houses a year.

...but there are many blocks in old Denver that have the same houses over and over, just like we have now. All those Denver squares and Sears started homes everywhere! Many have had the benefit of additions and modifications over time so it's less noticeable, but there are many of the same designs in old Denver just like sprawly new Denver (definitely to a lesser extent, but it's still there).

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Laniroj’s land scarcity problem is a capital and risk problem. I could just as easily say we don’t have an affordability problem - because if your price point is $1 million, we are just fine.

My shop does $50-$100mm in any given year. I wouldn't put us in the, can't put a dent in affordability problem or lack of capital column (and we also build rent restricted affordable!). My shop, national builders, and regional builders - none of us can find enough land. The Lennars, KB Homes, Richmonds,Mill Creeks, Oakwood Homes, and Trammel Crows of the world could and would all do more if they could all find suitable ground. That is a fact and unless you're in this business doing this everyday, you probably don't know that. If you're a lawyer in this business, you wouldn't know that explicitly, but I'm guessing you probably work on a lot of stuff for your clients that never moves forward for any number of reasons, typically at the land stage I would guess.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Name me a recent development agreement in Denver that doesn’t mandate affordable housing now. They all do.

As for environmental - how would you say Revesco is going to do River Mile? It’s certainly contaminated. They have an 18% affordable requirement. By your logic, it should be impossible. Are they just better at it than you?

They'll have a giant metro district to pay for it that pushes taxes to 120+ mills. Not every project, certainly not infill development for single projects, has a metro district - nor should it. Do you really think City Council would approve a metro district for 25,000 SF of land? Hell, what about a 3 acre parcel of one project? Giant master plans are different than infill, and infill w/o metro districts or PIFs or TIFs account for the vast majority of units we produce. By my logic, it's not possible for the vast majority of land sites in Denver where there's not a single owner that controls hundreds of acres of land.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...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...

I'm just curious if you thought the legislative change would have immediate affect? Oh yea, in one year all our problems will be solved. You are better than that TakeFive. Zoning changes take many years to make an impact. It's probably a little short sighted to think that 14 months after legislation is passed that Minneapolis has already instituted the policy, the units have been built, and the impact is happening...can't win with some folks.

[wong21fr]

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/

This article was published less than six months after the zoning change and clearly states that the upzoning will take decades to make an impact. Even the studies that are mentioned in the article talk about upzoning as a long-term impact initiative. The other part of the article discussing affordability for the poor goes for the tried and true trope of more, more, more public funding of affordable housing. The same thing your crush Candi keeps on pushing for.

[laniroj]

Is a project in the works at Fox Station? I get an error message when looking up this PM permit code...but that site sold later last year...

2019PM0000614

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

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.

Has it been that long since you took an ECO101 course or were you just stoned the entire time during your undergrad (I realize it was the late 60's and you don't seem like a ROTC product)? You're ignoring the demand side of the supply curve not to mention your definition of supply is inadequate and way too constrained.


Regardless, the supply of homes provided by Stapleton over the last ~20 years will be enough for about 30K people. Given that Denver will grow by about ~185K from 2000 to 2020, Stapleton will have accounted for about 16% of that growth in a land area that is 5% of the city. Remove that development from any supply model and you'd almost certainly see an upward pressure on the price equilibrium.

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.

Stapleton is required to have 10% designated affordable housing both as rental and as for-sale. So about 900 affordable for-sale and 500 rentals at buildout in the next 5 years.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

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

I suspect it's hard to be relevant or knowlegible about cities you're not familiar.

Generally, to the west and north of the CBD was industrial which became brown fields. Going back ~15 years the first area to be reclaimed and redeveloped into relatively dense residential was Commons Park.

The next area of brownfield to be reclaimed started with the $450 million Denver Union Station. The defined neighborhood was divided into Block A, Block B etc. The timing was perfect for TOD. This area developed out in warp speed with generally 10 to 15-story buildings of all types.

To the west of downtown across the freeway is the Highlands an old generally historical housing area. The eastern part, the area between Federal Blvd and the freeway is known as LoHi; more of a mixed bag it has seen substantial redevelopment into primarily mixed density residential which continues. Part of LoHi crosses the freeway toward downtown. This has become primarily an area of niche office space with strong appeal.

Down the hill from Coors Field lies the original RiNo area; lots of wholesale fruit and vegetables etc. Redevelopment started as an industrial chic area and has morphed into lots of medium-high density residential. This 'reclaimed' area is roughly 4 blocks by 12 blocks and currently it's ~one-third developed. Then 3 more blocks on the other side of the tracks were redefined as also part of RiNo. Roughly 3 blocks by 15 blocks this mixed use and eclectic area is maybe 25% redeveloped.

Scarcity is a relative term and in Denver's Urban Core the amount of land has grown dramatically over the last 15 years. Also consider I've only highlighted maybe 40% of the area for what was once the unloved periphery. There's still room for decades of redevelopment. Is the area subject to escalating land costs? Does a bear 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in the woods?

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by laniroj

You are better than that TakeFive.

No he's not. He thinks that his armchair quarterbacking is just as legitimate as your, Cirrus', and mhays' professional opinions. He's basically a climate denier for housing. The narrative is the same: housing scarcity isn't happening... er, it's real, but it's just natural and not caused by regulation... well the majority of professionals are just claiming scarcity because of greed... if you read this one article that supports my views you can ignore all of vast amounts of data that refutes my views... uhh, people that believe that there's a housing crunch are just developer shills or part of the Streetsblog cult.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I'm just curious if you thought the legislative change would have immediate affect? Oh yea, in one year all our problems will be solved. You are better than that TakeFive. Zoning changes take many years to make an impact. It's probably a little short sighted to think that 14 months after legislation is passed that Minneapolis has already instituted the policy, the units have been built, and the impact is happening...can't win with some folks.

Thanks for reading. I understand the timing here but perhaps you missed the study of Chicago which changed their zoning in 2013 and 2015 so that's 5 to 7 years of history. Perhaps if you had read the whole linked piece you'd have a more realistic assessment.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

No he's not. He thinks that his armchair quarterbacking is just as legitimate as your, Cirrus', and mhays' professional opinions.

Very fair point.

Yes, just because some MBA nerds come up with a good-sounding theory in order to justify their existence and their agenda then they must be right.

Fun fact. Cops who take eye-witness accounts of the suspect to a crime often come with wildly different descriptions. So it's not uncommon to have different views and there's no harm in agreeing to disagree.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Thanks for reading. I understand the timing here but perhaps you missed the study of Chicago which changed their zoning in 2013 and 2015 so that's 5 to 7 years of history. Perhaps if you had read the whole linked piece you'd have a more realistic assessment.

Was that a citywide upzoning or just a few neighborhoods? Just wondering if you'd care to pontificate.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Was that a citywide upzoning or just a few neighborhoods? Just wondering if you'd care to pontificate.

Specific neighborhoods and was studied by MIT doctoral candidate Yonah Freemark an avowed urbanist.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Thanks for reading. I understand the timing here but perhaps you missed the study of Chicago which changed their zoning in 2013 and 2015 so that's 5 to 7 years of history. Perhaps if you had read the whole linked piece you'd have a more realistic assessment.

It's worth noting Chicago is a bit of an anomaly in terms of large urban areas in America these days. Their population has been stagnant (even slightly declining) with a huge public debt burden that has lead to increased local taxes, etc. Might not be a good comparison.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by twister244

It's worth noting Chicago is a bit of an anomaly in terms of large urban areas in America these days. Their population has been stagnant (even slightly declining) with a huge public debt burden that has lead to increased local taxes, etc. Might not be a good comparison.

Which is a caveat that the author included as well (i.e. the context of the study). He also mentioned something about neighborhood area versus metropolitan area upzonings and the differences on the two.

But, hey, who's actually reading any of this 🞵🞵🞵🞵 that gets posted? Better to write paragraph after paragraph of meandering prose.

[TakeFive]

A lot of our problems, thread-wise, is that there are many overlapping issues that get easily conflated. Adding clarity would be useful.

First there is differing levels of development. We've discussed adding the missing middle; we've discussed adding medium density in existing residential neighborhoods where current zoning won't allow it. Except it's already being done here and there so even I get confused. Obviously one could add a mix of missing middle and medium density.

There's also specific areas where medium to high density is expected to occur.

Would adding density of any type accommodate additional growth and demand? Yes, of course it would. But adding density won't necessarily go hand in hand with being affordable. For highly desirable areas (or areas likely to become highly desirable) with new allowed development of upscale housing, affordability will be an oxymoron.

Curtis Park, for example, is is not a large area. If you add medium density as apposed to missing middle then presumably due to product type it will be more affordable than merely adding missing middle. This is all common sense but whatever density could be added in Curtis Park is highly unlikely to be considered affordable, at least by most people.

The way to get the most affordable bang for your buck has been better articulated by bunt.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by twister244

It's worth noting Chicago is a bit of an anomaly in terms of large urban areas in America these days. Their population has been stagnant (even slightly declining) with a huge public debt burden that has lead to increased local taxes, etc. Might not be a good comparison.

Totally agree outside of the fact the the urban center has been hotter than a firecracker and (many neighborhoods) would be very comparable.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Better to write paragraph after paragraph of meandering prose.

Speaking of meandering...

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Totally agree outside of the fact the the urban center has been hotter than a firecracker and (many neighborhoods) would be very comparable.

But those weren't the neighborhoods that were in the study, were they?

Perhaps you might want to admit that you didn't read the paper that is being discussed just yet? Gazed over for an ever so brief summation? Certainly. But having actually read it in depth? Such a claim would be pretty dubious.

An interesting takeaway from the paper is that the market (current and prospective owners) of the properties affected by the upzoning responded almost immediately to the market signal as indicated by the increased value of the land reflecting it's now higher use. However, construction of addition housing supply took a lot longer manifest due to a lack of demand in these submarkets.

Speaking of meandering...

I'd go with pithy over meandering.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

But those weren't the neighborhoods that were in the study, were they?

An interesting takeaway from the paper is that the market (current and prospective owners) of the properties affected by the upzoning responded almost immediately to the market signal as indicated by the increased value of the land reflecting it's now higher use. However, construction of addition housing supply took a lot longer manifest due to a lack of demand in these submarkets.

I'd go with pithy over meandering.

Pity the pithy?

I plead the fifth. Impressed that you took the time. That makes at least one of us.

The overriding assumption that I still hold to is that any affordability improvements will be very modest and at the margin. For that matter downtown Denver isn't all that unique to the whole Denver metro area which is much less affordable than it once was.

[mhays]

(never mind, others have covered my point)