DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Similarly, nobody's life is made better by EIFS-covered, double-loaded corridor-wrapped parking garages.

It's made better for the people that can afford to live there, closer to work, rather than being made to live out in the boonies. Believe me, I hate "ugly" architecture and "cheap" materials, too.

You know what does help all kinds of different people, particularly the goal of economic diversity? Historic preservation of missing middle housing.

Million dollar bungalows aren't missing middle and they don't promote economic diversity. Actually building missing middle will mean that the tradeoff will be the demolition of some genuinely good looking old homes. I'd love for as many of these to be preserved and only the parking lots redeveloped. However, take a look at how many of those parking lots are for sale and tell me that this is feasible.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is why you buy in a historic district of large-ish old nice single family homes on small-ish lots. Because Aurora and Broomfield don't have anything historic, so we have a credible argument that Denver needs to protect this unique thing that people can't get in the suburbs. Lots of places can accommodate density; none can replace this building stock. We'll literally be the last neighborhood in the entire city to get upzoned.

Or so the argument goes. Lol.

That's a valid and interesting perspective to make. Don't necessarily agree that's it city v suburbs. It is fair to say that City of Denver does have a fair amount of historical structure that have survived. But there's not all that much compared to many cities, is there.

Originally Posted by gopokes21

There are empty lots throughout historic neighborhoods. Build whatever on those lots. Contributing historic assets should be declared off-limits for demolition because, as bunt points out, once it's gone it's gone forever.

Secondly, if density is really the goal, how about a livable happy medium when it comes to density. Cap Hill is a better neighborhood than Golden Triangle. Historic communities tend to exemplify that ideal "missing middle" density level.

The National Trust has the data to prove that older, smaller = better.
https://savingplaces.org/stories/preserv...ings-preservation-green-lab#.YFkfmUhKjnU

We actually don't need every parcel in this city to be covered with generic, EIFS-covered, double-loaded apartment corridors wrapped around parking. That said, anyone should be welcome to build that on an available site if they conform to zoning and design standards.

YIMBY types are just market-obsessed libertarian urbanists struggling with all of those contradictions. If you want a value proposition to take to the extreme, how about one about people or neighborhoods?

Very nice post.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

This is the same racist nonsense that’s endlessly repeated here that never takes into account that non rich whities might want to save their neighborhoods for different reasons. Historic preservation and all. Get over your sanctimonious white self and stop telling minorities how to live and feel.

I totally agree.

Whether it's from the left or the right... why do they feel compelled to rewrite history to fit their own ideology?

Although we've had a much more racist past, that doesn't always mean that development in general was anything more than random, natural consequences of geography - which is generally the right answer.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is a tad harsh. You know, there are heteronormal 1-percenter white families that live in cookie-cutter Denver squares covered in crumbling brick, lead pipes, and bad insulation (working on that) that nevertheless generally agree with you, proudly call themselves YIMBYs, but who still see gray area in some places and might argue that homes built in 1900 Denver weren't necessarily built with any nefarious intent, are actually pretty and irreplaceable, and at least in some specific places, are worth preserving, notwithstanding some of the consequences for affordability in specific areas that might result in. And who take offense at the implication that liking an old brick house, in a city that does not have a lot of them, inherently makes one racist.

Well said.

Instead of the political spin du jour maybe check with those who are actually knowledgeable when it comes to history.

https://www.denverpost.com/2011/08/31/historian-on-race-denver-is-no-chicago/

White flight. Gentrification. Integration. Why does the idea of difference strike such perpetual and predictable fear among those already living on the block?

“Pardon the pun,” says Noel, “but it’s not as black and white a picture here.” Five Points, just north of downtown, has long been known as a black neighborhood, but it was once primarily Jewish, Noel said. Before that, Asian.“Most people would be surprised to hear this, but Denver’s (biggest) race riot was aimed at the Chinese,” said Noel. “Asians suffered far greater discrimination (than blacks) in Denver.”

What about gentrification?

“For some, gentrification can mean getting rid of blight, and it can mean new buildings, better transportation and new pride in your community,” “But for others, it can mean displacement of your neighbors, increased cost of living and a loss of cultural identity.

Noel believes gentrification in Denver is “a bit rosier” urban phenomenon than it is in other cities. Curtis Park, adjacent to Five Points, was once filled with Germans, then became a haven for blacks, Hispanics and Japanese.

What about Five Point as an example?

Five Points’ latest transformation has been to the celebration of some and consternation of others.

“If you look at the 2010 census, I think you will find that blacks are choosing to leave Five Points, and there are more Hispanics and whites there today,” said Noel. Some see that as the weakening of black Denver’s heart, but Noel thinks it’s also a strong indication that Denver has never been a racial box.

“Some see gentrification as solely a cultural loss,” he said. “But it also means blacks aren’t forced to live in one place here. They can live wherever they want to.”

[TakeFive]

Survey Says:

Please put the platitudes aside momentarily and indulge me feedback to a Simple Question:

With respect to your obsession over the missing middle are you wanting to create rentals or owner-occupied housing?


With respect to any affordability obsession

It's not like we haven't had ample opportunity. But aside from perhaps mojiferous, I'm unaware of anyone else pushing to build tenement housing. Obviously a Schnitt-load of tenement housing could have easily been built in RiNo. I just don't recall anyone wanting this? Just as obvious is that others had different ideas.

[twister244]

Guys, Let's re-examine the numbers here.

The AVERAGE price for a house in Denver now stands at $630k. That's an increase of over $100k in a year. That should rise above all of your concerns about historic structures in Denver if you care about this city. That's completely unacceptable, and will disproportionately impact lower income folks. While you guys are sitting here and quibbling about what's an acceptable level of historic preservation, people are being priced out of the city at an alarming rate.....

There is nothing healthy about Denver's real estate right now, and anyone who is a true urbanist should find these trends alarming.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by twister244

Guys, Let's re-examine the numbers here.

The AVERAGE price for a house in Denver now stands at $630k. That's an increase of over $100k in a year. That should rise above all of your concerns about historic structures in Denver if you care about this city. That's completely unacceptable, and will disproportionately impact lower income folks. While you guys are sitting here and quibbling about what's an acceptable level of historic preservation, people are being priced out of the city at an alarming rate.....

There is nothing healthy about Denver's real estate right now, and anyone who is a true urbanist should find these trends alarming.

The answer is a major rezoning of the entire city to allow denser developments. Unfortunately the chances of that happening are about the same as Boulder relinquishing its open space to build new subdivisions. This is ultimately the reason I’m looking at eventually moving out of state.

[The Dirt]

The Residential Infill Project (RIP) that Denver was going to take on last year, but was punted to this summer due to Covid is now on permanent hiatus. This would have been a multi-year planning and public input process which would have potentially delivered the kind of zoning reform done in Minneapolis. This was postponed until after the 2023 election because we don't have a mayor or council bold enough to take on something like this on the heels of something as controversial as group living.

So, instead of waiting 4-5 years for what would have undoubtedly been a watered down, too little too late upzoning, we're now looking at waiting 7-8 years. While places like Berkeley and San Jose are looking at lifting SFH-only zoning to allow du/tri/quad-plexes, we're barely hanging on. If you're expecting for Denver to be a progressive place open to all, unfortunately, middle to low income folks will no longer be a substantial part of the electorate in the coming years. Council people like Badmanda Sawyer, who put out misleading surveys and endorse MAGA propaganda, will be the majority of the council. Meanwhile, RNOs will squabble about tree canopies and how to stop all future development from blocking views of the mountains.

Bye, bye Denver! I'll hardly miss you!

[TakeFive]

You Pretend it's just like Spreading Pixie Dust (It's Not)


Source

Originally Posted by twister244

There is nothing healthy about Denver's real estate right now, and anyone who is a true urbanist should find these trends alarming.

https://www.axios.com/minneapolis-triple...dc0ecb1-2949-406e-9102-3b453f6d7e40.html

The Minneapolis 2040 plan legalized duplexes and triplexes just about anywhere in the city. But the overhaul resulted in the new construction of just 16 duplexes and four triplexes in 2020, the first full year of the new zoning rules.

• By the numbers: 22 existing properties were also converted to duplexes and triplexes. Altogether, those "plexes" added about 70 new units of housing to a city of 420,000.
• Flashback: The Minneapolis 2040 plan was hailed by national media as a revolutionary vision because it ended single-family zoning.
• Reality check: Developers say the financials and other zoning rules still make it difficult to build triplexes and duplexes.

Give us some REALITY-BASED Real Life Examples.

Bruce Brunner built a triplex in Uptown thanks to finding a relatively cheap ($260,000) house. He's working on more, but outlined for us why so few people aren't doing what he is doing:

1. It's hard to find vacant lots in sought-after parts of the city. Buying a house and tearing it down typically costs more than $300,000 — before the rebuild. In areas with cheaper houses, such as North Minneapolis, you can't get the rents you would need to make it work, Brunner said.
2. Existing zoning rules mean developers have to squeeze triplexes into small footprints.
3. Developers are concerned about new regulations, including proposed ballot measures on rent control.

There was some Good News but wait...

Yes, but:... Developers built 3,300 units in 2020, despite the pandemic.

• The biggest driver — and one that got much less ink nationally — was a change allowing easier approval of the five- and six-level buildings seen frequently on busier streets

So the biggest benefit did not even come from the Missing Middle.

In Conclusion you would say what?

Janne Flisrand, co-founder of pro-2040 Neighbors for More Neighbors, said she expects the number of plexes to grow in future years. But she acknowledged they will represent only an incremental change compared with the rise of taller residential buildings.

"Incremental Changes" won't do Jack Squat.

Also, depending on location, in Denver "Double or Triple" the numbers suggested for "Pre-Construction" costs in Minneapolis.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You Pretend it's just like Spreading Pixie Dust (It's Not)


Source



https://www.axios.com/minneapolis-triple...dc0ecb1-2949-406e-9102-3b453f6d7e40.html

Give us some REALITY-BASED Real Life Examples.

There was some Good News but wait...

So the biggest benefit did not even come from the Missing Middle.

In Conclusion you would say what?

"Incremental Changes" won't do Jack Squat.

Also, depending on location, in Denver "Double or Triple" the numbers suggested for "Pre-Construction" costs in Minneapolis.

Two things:
1 - We aren't Minneapolis. Once again, you are trying to compare Denver to another city like it's apples-to-apples. According to Wiki, MSP has grown around 12.3% in the last decade, while Denver has grown almost double that rate at 21.2%. If anything Denver has a much larger need for this sort of rezoning.
2 - Rezoning won't impact things overnight. No one is expecting that. These things take YEARS to manifest through city processing, applications, construction, etc.

Again, some of you guys really seem keen to advocating for NIMBY policies in Denver while ignoring evidence of what these sorts of policy positions do to local affordability (Boulder, Golden). No one is expecting upzoning to cause prices to drop, it's meant to mitigate rapid escalation of prices in the long run.

[TakeFive]

Take the Good Advice from our own in-house expert

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I'm talking about the cost builders incur on building new housing, not home buyers. If your lot costs 500K, that cost is passed down to the buyers.

Going back to my point. If a crumbling, unlivable 1950s house is prime for demolishing, a (re-)developer is still having to pay $450-600K for the property. This is typically 2/3rds of the total cost, so let's do some fuzzy math:
-$500K for land
-$250K for new construction
-10% developer profit
-$925K cost of the new development

Since most of Denver is zone for SFH, you're looking at replacing $500K shacks with $925K homes.

Assuming (as I do) that many have their eyes on nicer historical neighborhoods then we need to adjust your numbers but you're got the right idea going.

Quick Check:

• West Highlands: ~ $750K and up
• Washington Park: ~ $900K and up
• Baker: a FEW homes priced as low as ~ $650K and up
• Congress Park: ~ $650K and up
• Park Hill: ~ $600K and up

These prices would be the cost BEFORE any demolition. In a few cases there may be a cheaper home which also may be on a smaller lot or lesser location where The Dirt's "$925K cost of the new development" may be achievable. But a handful of $925K "missing middle" projects isn't going to accomplish much.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Take the Good Advice from our own in-house expert

Assuming (as I do) that many have their eyes on nicer historical neighborhoods then we need to adjust your numbers but you're got the right idea going.

Quick Check:

• West Highlands: ~ $750K and up
• Washington Park: ~ $900K and up
• Baker: a FEW homes priced as low as ~ $650K and up
• Congress Park: ~ $650K and up
• Park Hill: ~ $600K and up

These prices would be the cost BEFORE any demolition. In a few cases there may be a cheaper home which also may be on a smaller lot or lesser location where The Dirt's "$925K cost of the new development" may be achievable. But a handful of $925K "missing middle" projects isn't going to accomplish much.

UGH..... You still don't get it.

You don't replace the SFH with another SFH... You replace it with DENSE housing:
1 - Townhomes
2 - Apartments
3 - Condos

Take three $750k houses.... Demo them, put up 12 row/town homes at $500k/pop and you have profit.....

Put up condos at $300k/pop and you make profit.

This is what happened in Jefferson Park where I live. Neighborhood was upzoned years ago and now SFHs are being replaced with condos/town homes.

[TakeFive]

You'd make a good politician

Originally Posted by twister244

Two things:
1 - We aren't Minneapolis. Once again, you are trying to compare Denver to another city like it's apples-to-apples. According to Wiki, MSP has grown around 12.3% in the last decade, while Denver has grown almost double that rate at 21.2%. If anything Denver has a much larger need for this sort of rezoning.

When it's convenient you use it as a good example; when it's not then you rationalize, make excuses.

If you're saying the problem is more acute in Denver that's fine but the same principles play out in Denver except it will be much more challenging to make a difference.

Originally Posted by twister244

Two things:
2 - Rezoning won't impact things overnight. No one is expecting that. These things take YEARS to manifest through city processing, applications, construction, etc.

Really? My bet is that population growth will occur faster and bigger than whatever you think you accomplish over time.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by twister244

UGH..... You still don't get it.

You don't replace the SFH with another SFH... You replace it with DENSE housing:
1 - Townhomes
2 - Apartments
3 - Condos

Where did I suggest anything different? Actually it's The Dirt's argument that I used. Do you think that is what he meant? Nah, don't think so.

Originally Posted by twister244

Take three $750k houses.... Demo them, put up 12 row/town homes at $500k/pop and you have profit.....

Put up condos at $300k/pop and you make profit.

This is what happened in Jefferson Park where I live. Neighborhood was upzoned years ago and now SFHs are being replaced with condos/town homes.

Might I suggest your numbers are already a $100K low on the front end as well as the back end. If you want to tackle the neighborhoods I referenced then double those figures.

Are you thinking you can assemble three houses next to each other. Perhaps, but that will be the exception.

For the Record

I love so-called "missing middle" housing. I'm very familiar where a lot of it is and can likely name the developer as well the development. But there's HUGE difference from building on a significant site of vacant or available land where you can marry the product layout to the existing site.

We could have built a Schnitt-load of missing middle units in RiNo which was largely a blank canvass to start with; why didn't we do that?

Infill is a much more difficult challenge primarily b/c the lots are narrow and deep. That's how we ended up with slot homes and a cacophony of new decisions by the Denver City Council.

We have already built some missing middle housing

Various attached housing has been built in North Cherry Creek so this is one example. Didn't we do the same when the old Saint Anthony's hospital site was redeveloped? Has that made any discernible difference?

bunt would know this but there's a significant difference between "legal" townhomes and condos. Legally, townhomes own their own land as well as the air rights above. In buildings where "flats" are combined with townhomes then they need to be "legally" sold as condos. There's a difference in risk-reward profiles as we've seen over the last decade. It's supposedly gotten better but not necessarily a no-brainer.

[Ich]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You'd make a good politician


When it's convenient you use it as a good example; when it's not then you rationalize, make excuses.

If you're saying the problem is more acute in Denver that's fine but the same principles play out in Denver except it will be much more challenging to make a difference.


Really? My bet is that population growth will occur faster and bigger than whatever you think you accomplish over time.

So... we shouldn’t do anything? Just keep the status quo? Restrict development and price people out Denver?

I think it’s legit sad that people in the most current generations feel like home ownership isn’t obtainable as they watch home prices far outpace income growth because people like you think that emotional ties to “history” and “character” of neighbors are more important than easing housing prices to allow for people to have a chance at home ownership (or even renting at this point). Not every old home needs to be saved, not every building that have some fond memory is historical and you can build denser buildings in SFH areas and still have a great neighborhood. You think all those little apartment buildings and large condo buildings (that actually make up the middle missing homes) in Cap Hill and Cheeseman are architectural wonders? Not at all. Did those neighborhoods go to complete shit because they tore down SFHs to build them? NO, they did not. You actually ended up with one of the more obtainable, walkable, socioeconomic diverse neighborhoods in Denver. What’s most annoying about this ignorant NIMBY perspective is that that you offer no legit alternatives to addressing the issue of affordability. Why can’t you just build on the empty lots? Well because if you restrict the amount of developable land then the price of that land goes up, add in zoning laws and neighbor groups and you left with developers needing to be high end units to turn a profit. Why can’t move to they suburbs? Well because other nimbys out in the burbs and environmentalist think it hurts the environment and don’t want to fund roads because it encourages people to drive adding to global warming which has given us increased traffic which no one likes. Why can’t people just stop moving here? Because Denver is a great city and people will want to move here. Being a native I would prefer that this city grows in way that anyone can enjoy it... not just people who consider an entry level home 450k - 550k

[TakeFive]

It's like the Blind leading the Blind

Originally Posted by Ich

So... we shouldn’t do anything? Just keep the status quo? Restrict development and price people out Denver?

I think it’s legit sad that people in the most current generations feel like home ownership isn’t obtainable as they watch home prices far outpace income growth because people like you think that emotional ties to “history” and “character” of neighbors are more important than easing housing prices to allow for people to have a chance at home ownership (or even renting at this point).

So "people like me" eh?

Just for the record, I left Denver in late 2006 when housing affordability was still very reasonable. Then in 2008 prices actually became even more reasonable.

It was only in the last decade - really that last five years that price escalation has become such an issue. All those people "like me" that have been living in Denver neighborhoods for decades had little to nothing to do with the current unfortunate circumstances. But you want to make it 'our fault' and responsibility? Good luck selling that to the rational long-time residents.

Originally Posted by Ich

Not every old home needs to be saved, not every building that have some fond memory is historical and you can build denser buildings in SFH areas and still have a great neighborhood. You think all those little apartment buildings and large condo buildings (that actually make up the middle missing homes) in Cap Hill and Cheeseman are architectural wonders? Not at all.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Ich

What’s most annoying about this ignorant NIMBY perspective is that that you offer no legit alternatives to addressing the issue of affordability. Why can’t you just build on the empty lots? Well because if you restrict the amount of developable land then the price of that land goes up, add in zoning laws and neighbor groups and you left with developers needing to be high end units to turn a profit.

Did you read my post Re: Minneapolis?

The point is that it's a problem that's not easily solved. You seem to think that the demand/supply curve can be easily roped off and addressed. I don't see that formula working as you envision it. I'm skeptical that if you did wholesale scraping and replaced it with missing middle units that it wouldn't make more than a slight short-term difference. Of course a lot of it would depend on what the quality of replacement middle income housing was, no? In any case this isn't even realistic.

I can't speak for the many multi-decade owners who live in central city neighborhoods but I do cringe at wiping the history that helps to make Denver so special - especially if the change wouldn't solve anything. Give me your example where this has ever worked? Detroit maybe - Okay.

I've also suggested there should be room for compromise but it won't make any real difference. But again "I do love me some missing middle style housing."

[TakeFive]

No longer a Virgin; Congratulations to Patrinely Group


Image courtesy Patrinely Group

Patrinely Group Secures First Tenant at Block 162
March 22, 2021 - Mile High CRE

Law firm Sherman & Howard is leasing 60,000 Sq Ft. at Block 162. Notable is that Sherman & Howard has been in the same space for 45 years. Certainly Sherman & Howard is a familiar name to Denver

Denver-based law firm Sherman & Howard L.L.C. has signed a lease at Block 162... This lease represents the largest new office lease signed in downtown Denver in the past 12 months.

As an Am Law 200 firm and one of Denver’s leadings firms, we believe our space should match our team’s energy and innovation. Our new location will enable the type of collaboration which has emerged as the new standard for professional service firms... Announcing Block 162 as Sherman & Howard’s new headquarters is the first step in bringing our vision of the future of the firm to life,” said Sherman & Howard’s Chief Executive Officer Greg Densen.

[TakeFive]

Update on the Left Coast; You win some lose some

Originally Posted by The Dirt

While places like Berkeley and San Jose are looking at lifting SFH-only zoning to allow du/tri/quad-plexes, we're barely hanging on.

Berkeley ends more than 100-year-old single-family zoning policy
February 24 By KTVU staff

BERKELEY, Calif. - The Berkeley City Council has unanimously voted to become the first Bay Area city to end single-family zoning. The resolution, adopted Tuesday night, will allow for multifamily housing on lots that currently are zoned for only one home.

The resolution will go into effect in December 2022.

Not sure Berkeley is that meaningful but a win is a win.

Survey finds opposition to high-density zoning in San Jose
February 8, 2021 By Sonya Herrera - San Jose Spotlight

According to initial survey results, 48% of San Jose residents are opposed to Opportunity Housing, while 24% of residents support the initiative. Roughly a quarter of residents polled said they need more information, according to the survey.

Opportunity Housing would allow up to four housing units on land currently designated for single-family homes. The vast majority of San Jose’s residential land — 94% — is designed or “zoned” for single-family homes.

Not dead yet but maybe on Life Support. San Jose really should find at a minimum "Areas of Change" like Denver did to support a larger variety of housing.

It's not like somebody will turn the lights out in five years

Originally Posted by The Dirt

The Residential Infill Project (RIP) that Denver was going to take on last year, but was punted to this summer due to Covid is now on permanent hiatus. This would have been a multi-year planning and public input process which would have potentially delivered the kind of zoning reform done in Minneapolis. This was postponed until after the 2023 election because we don't have a mayor or council bold enough to take on something like this on the heels of something as controversial as group living.

So, instead of waiting 4-5 years for what would have undoubtedly been a watered down, too little too late upzoning, we're now looking at waiting 7-8 years.

For starters I have a deep abiding confidence that the Amacon Condo Towers will indeed be built. Amacon has extensive experience in Canada/Toronto area with developing Condo Towers; they know what they are doing. How can nice condos not be a a Big Seller by they time they become available. Good chance that Pre-Sales will show solid demand.

I'm not sure all the histrionics is warranted

Originally Posted by twister244

Sorry, but agree to disagree. Denver doesn't have plenty of land to develop on IN THE CITY..... I already laid out swaths of the city on my side of town where you can't develop on SFH lots because of zoning. Your list of places doesn't encompass large swaths of land. My neighborhood (Jefferson Park) was upzoned 10 years ago, and it's quickly running out of lots to develop townhomes, etc.

There's a Schnitt-ton of land between I-25 and Sheridan and Colfax to I-70. Didn't you say that only the area west of Federal and north of 24th St. retains its SFH zoning (excepting Tennyson St)? That's hardly that much to leave for preservation.

Aside from the Loretto Heights Redevelopment, all the other sites I listed are well within the (expanding) City center and depending on how they are developed could make a significant difference. It wouldn't surprise if me if at some point, some of the juice goes out of Five Point/Curtis Park/RiNo to where missing middle units may become the best option.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

It's made better for the people that can afford to live there, closer to work, rather than being made to live out in the boonies. Believe me, I hate "ugly" architecture and "cheap" materials, too.



Million dollar bungalows aren't missing middle and they don't promote economic diversity. Actually building missing middle will mean that the tradeoff will be the demolition of some genuinely good looking old homes. I'd love for as many of these to be preserved and only the parking lots redeveloped. However, take a look at how many of those parking lots are for sale and tell me that this is feasible.

We almost have a thread of agreement emerging except that merely being for sale does not mean appropriate to demolish.

You know what makes me sick? Demolition of historic bungalows on every street of my neighborhood (Congress Park) for tacky McMansions, which get tackier with each successive scrape and build. This used to be a nice, dare I say tasteful, inclusive community and now it's becoming a tackier Cherry Creek North. I really need to move. The allowable range of tackiness grows with each successive tear-down. Garfield between 17th and 14th is quite the case study; there's some older, stylish modern abodes densely squeezed onto small lots, no bigger than adjacent bungalow lots, and respectful of the existing setback line. I'm fine with "gentle density" like this. Then a block over (behind Sprouts) there's a new, amazingly ugly, cheaply-built McMansion duplex built about 8 feet in front of the rest of the block's setback. They sold each McDuplex for $900K.

The stuff being torn down across town is affordable and speaking just of missing middle, highly endangered. We don't build medium-scale anymore - it's only economically feasible to build McMansions or generic EIFS-covered infill up to the height limit. Both of these options yield alienating and inferior built environments.

Historic preservation is a bold red line for me. I can't remotely entertain all of these bad faith YIMBY arguments against historic preservation.

[ams5280]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Historic preservation is a bold red line for me. I can't remotely entertain all of these bad faith YIMBY arguments against historic preservation.

Lets face it, most of the so-called preservationists don’t give a rats ass about history, they don’t like change and are enjoying their increasing home values while wanting to stop anything else from being built that might alter the sweet setup.

If you actually care about /all/ these ‘historic’ catalog homes, let’s just landmark every SFH built before 1971. No exterior updates that don’t match the period of construction, some added commissions and DRBs to make sure your front yard retains that “classic character”, period specific landscaping only.

Because right now, those homes are still facing the wrecking ball only to be replaced by bigger, more-outrageously priced SFH (and duplexes in the few places permitted). Only rezoning small areas at a time almost guarantees a greater change concentrated in those areas.

To the NIMBYs point, the land is too expensive, so the missing middle is still probably not dense enough. There’s a great fourplex in Cherry Creek if you have $1.4 million.

I still have to point out the hypocrisy in a city that tore down Tabor Opera House and all of Curtis St laying down in front of the bulldozers for a Sears & Roebuck bungalow on every block. There are more important preservation targets.

I care about historic preservation, and also appreciate classic architectural styles, but you can’t deny that modern homes are just the next iteration of the Denver Square, albeit more expensive. Neighborhood design standards would be great, but add cost to construction - and committee review is often fickle. Find a middle ground to create the desired form.

But don’t enshrine 3/4 the city in amber over an empty argument of historic value. Cities change, as well they should. Cap Hill was once all mansions for the rich, as was West Colfax. Our city /has changed/ but now we want to set an arbitrary date for when everything was perfect? Give me a break.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by twister244

This is what happened in Jefferson Park where I live. Neighborhood was upzoned years ago and now SFHs are being replaced with condos/town homes.

Citing what has happened to Jefferson Park as a model isn't going to win you many allies in the general public... just sayin'.

Originally Posted by ams5280

But don’t enshrine 3/4 the city in amber over an empty argument of historic value. Cities change, as well they should. Cap Hill was once all mansions for the rich, as was West Colfax. Our city /has changed/ but now we want to set an arbitrary date for when everything was perfect? Give me a break.

I don't think it's arbitrary at all. Pre-war vs. post-war. It's not arbitrary when the car haters cite post-war as the moment in time when America's cities went to shit. Why would it be at all surprising that American residential architecture went to shit at exactly the same time?

I am not sure the Denver Fugly crowd could put that into a coherent sentence, but if you read what they put out there, that is very clearly the line.

Originally Posted by twister244

Again, some of you guys really seem keen to advocating for NIMBY policies in Denver while ignoring evidence of what these sorts of policy positions do to local affordability (Boulder, Golden). No one is expecting upzoning to cause prices to drop, it's meant to mitigate rapid escalation of prices in the long run.

I just think that targeting single family housing, writ large, as the evil that needs to be excised from cities is the wrong fight, and a losing fight. (And then you guys write book reports on facebook on the racist history of single family zoning, trying to cloak yourselves in a societal moment and claim it as your own, ignoring city- and neighborhood- specific history in the process, and the whole movement becomes just another easy-to-ignore progressive ideological quest. With 3/4 of the city as its target.) That's not the same as advocating NIMBY policies; it's being anti-...whatever this is.

My current favorite is that awful vacant church at the northeast corner of Colorado and Bayaud. That site should become something gargantuan and dense. But we know it won't be - that'll end up being a 3-5 story disappointment. That's the fight I think we should be picking, right there. But it's not as sexy.

The fight you guys have instead decided to pick is advocating for opening floodgates that, in the real world, will only lead to slow incremental change (while bigger opportunities continue to pass us by). But also in the real world scares the living shit out of 3/4 of the City and puts people on the defensive. It's almost as if you'd prefer to make a statement than make change. Which, of course, is exactly what it is.