DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[gopokes21]

TakeFive - Dallas DART goes below ground to get across major freeway interchanges in/out of downtown even if it isn't "subway" per se. The underground stretch on the DART Red Line for the first mile or two between downtown and City Place (which is a subway station) is actually fairly significant. The point being that other peer cities are tunneling where it makes sense while we are still incredibly scared of going below ground. "Anti-tunnel vision" if you will.

Originally Posted by laniroj

People don't utilize public transportation until driving becomes a worse alternative. If you're all about saving the world and the green new deal, you have to live with some major near term traffic/parking pain. I'm not in that category, but if we continue to allow cars and traffic isn't too terrible, people will continue driving cars - especially the new Denver residents who are well off and can afford one or more vehicles.

You hit the nail on the head several times in your post, including the alignment of social justice/equity planning and rich white NIMBY factions, our strong big-picture planning to the detriment of smaller details, and why transit here isn't working ($7 billion later).

The above and especially bolded is why nothing we are already doing is going to help. We will just build more LRT and BRT and car dependency will continue to grow and we'll scratch our heads at this disconnect, but hey at least it will employ a lot of people and generate economic development and more auto-centric "TOD".

That's why Denver needs to do something different. Subway would offer people the ability to get from Civic Center to the middle of Cap Hill in 1 minute. Civic Center to Cherry Creek in 5 minutes, without hunting for parking. Everyone would use that. That would transform Denver and get people out of their cars.

Or we can spend another $7 billion on LRT and BRT that nobody will use as long as driving is marginally more convenient.

I'm with you in hoping for some strong leadership with a bold vision. We seem to be going in the other direction since Albus Brooks got primaried by CdeBaca and others hell-bent on destroying Mike Hancock, another such strong leader.

[BG918]

The problem we have in Denver is lack of any visionary leadership. That’s where projects like DIA, the convention center, Fastrax and Union Station came from that literally transformed this city. The boldest plan being discussed is River Mile and it’s being led by private interests! If you’re proposing a subway you should include River Mile as well: River Mile - Union Station - 17th & California - Civic Center - Capitol Hill - Cherry Creek

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by BG918

The problem we have in Denver is lack of any visionary leadership. That’s where projects like DIA, the convention center, Fastrax and Union Station came from that literally transformed this city. The boldest plan being discussed is River Mile and it’s being led by private interests! If you’re proposing a subway you should include River Mile as well: River Mile - Union Station - 17th & California - Civic Center - Capitol Hill - Cherry Creek

You're absolutely right, but the environment is just so vexing and full of pitfalls in a post-boom city versus a post-bust city where people were affirmatively seeking transformation. I'm cautiously optimistic that bold leadership will reappear when it's safe to do so.

Also it's really interesting how, to be clear, Hancock never ran as a transformative leader but has grown more supportive of big projects throughout his three terms in office. He has gradually morphed into what he ran against originally, but with an emphasis on incorporating equity and social justice concerns while accomplishing big projects at the same time. It's very unique to strike that balance, and of course neither side will ever appreciate you.

Jamie Giellis ended up embodying anything she could get to stick, including a bunch of strange alliances with disparate (opposing) special interests - just anyone who didn't like Hancock. Definitely not a "bold" alternative, and her "big idea" was streetcars for intracity transit which is an even worse idea than more LRT or BRT.

Political leadership is a great big question but what's not in question, whether leadership likes it or not, is that people will continue flocking to Denver and developers will seek to deliver projects that serve the city's needs. Growth and development will only become a bigger issue because it's not going away. The vision put in place by past mayors (especially Pena and Hick) is still strong today and Denver kind of sells itself, like it or not.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

You're absolutely right, but the environment is just so vexing and full of pitfalls in a post-boom city versus a post-bust city where people were affirmatively seeking transformation. I'm cautiously optimistic that bold leadership will reappear when it's safe to do so.

Also it's really interesting how, to be clear, Hancock never ran as a transformative leader but has grown more supportive of big projects throughout his three terms in office. He has gradually morphed into what he ran against originally, but with an emphasis on incorporating equity and social justice concerns while accomplishing big projects at the same time. It's very unique to strike that balance, and of course neither side will ever appreciate you.

Jamie Giellis ended up embodying anything she could get to stick, including a bunch of strange alliances with disparate (opposing) special interests - just anyone who didn't like Hancock. Definitely not a "bold" alternative, and her "big idea" was streetcars for intracity transit which is an even worse idea than more LRT or BRT.

Political leadership is a great big question but what's not in question, whether leadership likes it or not, is that people will continue flocking to Denver and developers will seek to deliver projects that serve the city's needs. Growth and development will only become a bigger issue because it's not going away. The vision put in place by past mayors (especially Pena and Hick) is still strong today and Denver kind of sells itself, like it or not.

We definitely lack and leadership or any vision in this city right now. I really have no idea what Hancock is for, other than development and trying to climb political ladders. While there have been a few visionary ideas from the convention center, to stock show to airport, every infrastructure project under his leadership has been a complete boondoggle. As you note Gielles was a complete dud as well, essentially an empty vessel hand-selected by Zeppelin. She had trouble articulating a complete sentence, let alone a direction for Denver. And City Council is largely a bunch of NIMBYs focused on complaining and opposing Hancock, but offering no real solutions or vision for the direction the city should be going. And I certainly don't see the current crop of councilpeople as a breeding ground for future political leadership. And the RTD board, omg don't get me started on the RTD board.

For 30 years this city was able to count on bold, forward looking leadership not afraid to invest in the future. Now that those investments are paying off, its ironic that we now have such a vacuum of leadership or any semblance of political talent in this city.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

That's why Denver needs to do something different. Subway would offer people the ability to get from Civic Center to the middle of Cap Hill in 1 minute. Civic Center to Cherry Creek in 5 minutes, without hunting for parking. Everyone would use that. That would transform Denver and get people out of their cars.

Think of public transportation expansion like the retail development expression - retail follows rooftops - not vice versa. We have essentially tried this "induced public transportation demand" with trex and fastracks. It's fairly well proven it doesn't work from a self sustaining financial perspective. Did we get light rail? Yes. Can we afford to operate and maintain it without significant operating subsidies that hamstring the rest of our transportation efforts? NO.

We HAVE to accept higher density prior to embarking on additional major public transportation initiatives though that doesnt mean we will. We can vote to raise new dollars to pay for this new shiny stuff, but we won't be able to afford it over the long term unless we have many more people than we currently have planned for contributing ridership revenue to it.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

We definitely lack and leadership or any vision in this city right now. I really have no idea what Hancock is for, other than development and trying to climb political ladders. While there have been a few visionary ideas from the convention center, to stock show to airport, every infrastructure project under his leadership has been a complete boondoggle.

Stock show and aerotropolis are pretty significant visionary accomplishments for any Mayor. Those are all huge 10-figure deals that will have enormous economic impacts long term. Short term boon-doggling? Yes. I would also mention that housing became an issue under Hancock's leadership though not necessarily because of him. Form based rezoning was a Hickenlooper thing and it came to fruition under Hancock. He has done a commendable job prioritizing affordable housing and serving the tiny margins that world affects but a much less admirable a job prioritizing or leading on zoning/planning standards that created a housing affordability issue in the first place. He has also brought to the surface a bunch of good work/analysis surrounding equity especially as it pertains to parks access and he's instituted the large development review process which gives communities a better voice for meaningful and highly impactful projects. All good things, but he hasn't addressed the elephant in the room - planning/zoning shortfalls.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Think of public transportation expansion like the retail development expression - retail follows rooftops - not vice versa. We have essentially tried this "induced public transportation demand" with trex and fastracks. It's fairly well proven it doesn't work from a self sustaining financial perspective. Did we get light rail? Yes. Can we afford to operate and maintain it without significant operating subsidies that hamstring the rest of our transportation efforts? NO.

You're trying to say that we can't serve areas of the city where density does exist because it didn't go so well when we spent $6-7 billion on LRT serving almost entirely industrial warehouse sections of Denver.

I'm not sure I follow that logic. Why don't we actually follow rooftops then?

So what do you want, more density, and more rooftops? Because it's on the way (and given how much more supply we need, we know that will be the case for a long time). Now we need to mitigate this cycle of increasing car-dependency along with density as a result of higher-income new residents - that 🞵🞵🞵🞵 aint sustainable. Overbuilding parking is also a HUGE part of our (un)affordability situation, and I think most of us also share the concerns about local cost escalations.

[The Dirt]

Quick note on parking. It's not enough to eliminate parking minimums. We have to instate parking maximums, because lenders will demand a certain amount of parking based on what they think makes a project profitable. If parking is made illegal, developers are no longer held to those standards.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Completely on board with the parking maximum idea. Without it, lenders are going to favor developments with overabundant parking because lenders believe that they will be more attractive to tenants than other residential developments. If the zoning capped the parking, then the parking inventory would not be driven as much by that particular market force.

In addition, I doubt that parking maximums would meaningfully affect the demand for housing in Denver. People don't move here for overabundant parking and, even with parking maximums, Denver is a long way off from being impractical for drivers like NYC or SF. I would be open to hear counter arguments though.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

because lenders will demand a certain amount of parking based on what they think makes a project profitable. If parking is made illegal, developers are no longer held to those standards.

Or they just wont develop because it's too risky. Seems like a good way to stifle construction.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

Or they just wont develop because it's too risky. Seems like a good way to stifle construction.

Or developers will still try and develop but their access to financing is constricted thus restricting development. Which could be offset by raising the sales/lease price to move further up the luxury tier.

[TakeFive]

So be careful what you ask for?

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

Or they just wont develop because it's too risky. Seems like a good way to stifle construction.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Or developers will still try and develop but their access to financing is constricted thus restricting development.

[TakeFive]

Pre-pandemic review; it's a simple math problem
(but it get's complex)

The SW Corridor light rail - opened for service in July 17, 2000
TV News coverage showed the parking at Mineral Station lot (1227 spaces) full and overflowing into the neighborhoods by 7:00 A.M. https://www.rtd-denver.com/reports-and-policies/facts-figures/southwest-corridor-light-rail-line

Ridership has exceeded the projected forecast of 8,400 riders per weekday and averaged 17,900 riders, in April 2002, at the five stations (113 percent over projections). Total light rail system ridership was projected at 22,400 and reached a high of 41,690 average weekday boardings in September 2006.

Overnight every mayor of every (suburban) city wanted their slice of heaven. The SW Corridor light rail was built for a song meaning mostly from federal grants. It's important to understand this 'in real time' picture for critical context.

Then T-REX happened. It's 19 miles of light rail. Two of the busiest stations outside of the city center in the whole system remain at Lincoln Station and Nine Mile Station (along with the original Mineral Station).

Fast Forward

Despite modest ridership generally, seven light rail corridors carried Half as much ridership as 142 bus routes in 2019.

Problem One
Light rail is (mostly) a suburb to city (downtown) system. Downtown has the highest density of employment and it's still growing. That said, downtown has (only) ~10% of the total metro employment.

Problem Two
FasTracks was a "visionary" plan. It's intent was to direct future development density patterns to along light rail lines. Essentially, they were thinking of future development in the suburbs since in the early 2000's that where most of the development was.

Life is what happens while you're making other plans
Nobody predicted the glorious surge of development downtown but it happened.

The wisdom of FasTracks

The way the lines merge coming into downtown there's essentially five corridors into downtown. There are ongoing plans for millions of $'s of TOD adding up to billions of $'s of TOD at city-center light/commuter rail stations. Sure, it will take a couple of decades but FasTracks will prove a development density bonanza for the city center.

I happened to have walked around DUS and the DUS neighborhood. That single area along with the Trains to the Planes justifies the FasTracks investment just by itself.

Today's myopic hysteria?

[TakeFive]

It's a bit of a conundrum

But I wouldn't agree with this:

Originally Posted by laniroj

We have essentially tried this "induced public transportation demand" with trex and fastracks. It's fairly well proven it doesn't work from a self sustaining financial perspective. Did we get light rail? Yes. Can we afford to operate and maintain it without significant operating subsidies that hamstring the rest of our transportation efforts? NO.

AFAIK, the four-tenths percent dedicated FasTracks tax is enough to pay for the capital and maintenance costs of light/commuter rail. I do believe/guessing that the operational costs for rail service comes out of the other six-tenths percent RTD tax. But that's hardly unreasonable given that 7 rail corridors provide half the ridership of 142 bus routes (in 2019).

The 7/8-county RTD district voters wanted and agreed to pay for the four-tenths percent tax for a light and commuter rail system. wong isn't wrong that anticipating leftover money they then intended to use any extra money to enhance bus service. Oh well.

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Part of the fatally-flawed institutional design of RTD includes gerrymander-style cracking and packing. All of Denver's dense eastside hoods are packed into District A which consolidates (thus minimizing) political will to serve these neighborhoods, while ensuring suburban control of RTD. We may just have to get rid of RTD to be quite honest,

I have speculated much the same as to potentially reorganizing RTD. Plus I like the boundaries that laniroj defines.

Originally Posted by laniroj

We can't even support existing light rail (not even close) and ridership among our suburban commuter focused regional bus system is abysmal. To make public transportation MORE attractive for the Center City of Denver only, four major changes must occur and all will take decades. I am writing off anything outside the center City (call it I25 south, I 70 north, Wadsworth to Quebec) except RidgeGate because there's not hope for our second and third tier suburbs.

The obvious "elephant in the room" is why should the voter/taxpayers of 7/8 counties pay six-tenths percent tax for bus service within the above defined boundaries?

[Cirrus]

> Can we afford to operate and maintain it without significant operating subsidies that hamstring the rest of our transportation efforts?

No transportation system pays for itself. Not even toll roads*. That's not the goal and never has been, for any mode, except for when someone wants an excuse to not pay for something. Transportation is a means to an end. The end is a functioning civilization with whatever characteristics you value. The civilization you get is the civilization you pay to build.

Where and how to build transit are separate/important questions, and of course the ability to reduce costs by recouping some user fees does factor into the calculation. But nothing pays for itself.

* Tolls roads do not pay for themselves because they're useless unless you can access them via free surface streets. They require a huge surrounding network of subsidized streets to get any paying customers at all.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

EXACTLY. I have been saying this for 4 years: Denver/Colorado aren't growing faster, we've just restricted all of our zoning so that we can't build housing. We don't have a growth problem, we have a housing and land use problem. The 2010's should be the fourth or fifth slowest decade of growth in Colorado's history.

Couple of things; raw statistics is fine but based on percentages can also be incomplete.

City/county of Denver started the last decade in a deep recession although Denver wasn't nearly as impacted as many places. Growth within the city center was parabolic once it got going about 2012. Then the pace tempered off at the end of the decade based on percentage but was still solid based on absolute numbers on a growing base.

Denver’s population growth leads Colorado as urban areas outpace rural
Many of the state’s smallest counties have lost population since 2010
March 26, 2020 By JON MURRAY - DP

That rate was down just slightly from Denver’s 1.6% growth the year prior — and the city’s boom has tempered considerably from earlier in the decade. Since 2010, the city’s population has grown by a cumulative 21%, adding more than 127,000 people.

-------------------

Originally Posted by laniroj

First - Denver doesn't have near enough residential density to support a robust public transportation system so we need much MUCH more of it. ... To get the density that would support robust public transportation, we need modest upzones City-wide or aggressive upzones within 3 blocks of every major road (7 stories) and modest upzones (3 stories) within one block of every arterial road.

I have said for a long, long time that with the exception of Cap Hill Denver didn't generally build outward with much density. As a result it didn't have any natural transit corridors outside of East Colfax which has always been a busy transit corridor.

I have always favored upzoning nearby natural transit corridors.

---------------------

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd couch the parking-minimums point a little differently. We're probably saying the same thing.

I still contend that the parking controversy is way overblown; it's a myth.

Originally Posted by mhays

First, the typical resident of a no/low-parking building doesn't have a car. These buildings are typically in areas with good transit and walkability, units are typically small, and residents self-select. (Some will have cars, and I acknowledge some effect on free on-street spaces.)

This is just now starting to happen (more) in downtown Denver. While I didn't previously make the point, you do with respect to type of unit being built/offered.

Going back to say 2012, most of the new apartment construction was considered "luxury" which is common apartment-speak. But they weren't smaller 'micro' units or of the new 'social' communities which are clearly (and finally) appealing to those with a more modest budget.

With respect to pubic parking within the CBD or adjacent to public cultural facilities any available public parking should be as cheap as possible IMO. It's an important courtesy to those outside the city center who need to drive. Rideshare can provide an option for some (assuming it remains available at a reasonable cost). This includes those doing short-term business downtown or those attending cultural (or sports) facilities. For the record Denver downtown doesn't even have that much public parking and more will be lost to dedicated bus lanes etc. I'm not counting land bankers; that's a different topic and temporary thing.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

> Can we afford to operate and maintain it without significant operating subsidies that hamstring the rest of our transportation efforts?

No transportation system pays for itself. Not even toll roads*. That's not the goal and never has been, for any mode, except for when someone wants an excuse to not pay for something. Transportation is a means to an end. The end is a functioning civilization with whatever characteristics you value. The civilization you get is the civilization you pay to build.

Where and how to build transit are separate/important questions, and of course the ability to reduce costs by recouping some user fees does factor into the calculation. But nothing pays for itself.

* Tolls roads do not pay for themselves because they're useless unless you can access them via free surface streets. They require a huge surrounding network of subsidized streets to get any paying customers at all.

I hope you're doing well?

Simple Question: Which did you like more?

Jenifer Lopez singing "This Land is Your Land" and "America the Beautiful" or Amanda Gorman reciting her poem "The Hill We Climb"?
(or something else)

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It's a bit of a conundrum

The obvious "elephant in the room" is why should the voter/taxpayers of 7/8 counties pay six-tenths percent tax for bus service within the above defined boundaries?

It just depends if they want help funding, maintaining, operating, and expanding the FasTracks network they rely on for attractive commutes to downtown (along with the added benefit of coordinated service delivery) or if they want to be on their own for operating that.

Aside from Denver Union Station and 38th and Blake a half-dozen smaller stations, Denver isn't really a feature of FasTracks and shouldn't maintain it if we are totally on our own for local transit.

[gopokes21]

By the way apologies for the big transit debate; this being a development summary thread, here's some news on the aggregate:

https://milehighcre.com/denver-a-top-10-market-for-development-opportunity/

CBRE named Denver the #3 market for multifamily opportunity, #4 for retail opportunity, #11 for industrial opportunity, and #16 for office opportunity (we still need to absorb the latest huge wave of deliveries that came right before or during COVID). Across all asset classes, that makes Denver the #6 market for development opportunities. We're behind Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, (Orlando somehow?) and Seattle, but we beat Austin.

It's so weird to me that locally we're grappling with back-breaking cost escalations and concerns that skyrocketing costs will erode Denver's competitiveness. However, from the outside looking in, nobody is batting an eye at the cost of things in Denver.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

It just depends if they want help funding, maintaining, operating, and expanding the FasTracks network they rely on for attractive commutes to downtown (along with the added benefit of coordinated service delivery) or if they want to be on their own for operating that.

Aside from Denver Union Station and 38th and Blake a half-dozen smaller stations, Denver isn't really a feature of FasTracks and shouldn't maintain it if we are totally on our own for local transit.

Huh? Is this the typical "the real Denver is only the Center City" group think that's present in urbanite circles? Because Denver has damn near half of the light rail and commuter rail stations in the network and the majority of the high-ridership stations.