DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

Can't afford rail to the places they already increased taxes in 2006 for - but lets plan a subway! I have a feeling you have researched tunneling cost (about $350,000 per foot)

Sorry, nobody (except Gov. Polis and other Boulder leaders) cares whether Boulder has a low-ridership train or not. I can think of infinitely better uses of $2-3 billion (subway to under-served parts of the urban core).

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

I agree with all of this. What I don't understand is we we can't find a strategic middle ground where we infill as much as possible while still keeping "desirable neighborhoods" desirable.

There's good things about every single Denver neighborhood. Why don't we keep those things at all cost, and let developers build around what we have now?

My bargain on this would be a city-wide upzoning coupled with design overlays. Let neighborhoods determine what materials and building forms are best suited to maintain their respective characters while allowing additional density and living situations. You'd end up with costlier developments due to the design review, but you'd (hopefully) set a generational change in motion to allow neighborhoods to move from a single family dominant model to a more diverse mix while still maintaining that collective design sense that people associate with certain neighborhoods.

The problem is Denver has gotten itself into a technically-virtuous cycle of higher-income in-migration. In this dynamic, renters and lower-income homeowners are extremely vulnerable. The answer to this problem isn't more housing instability and development chaos.

Even doing nothing is going to create more instability and chaos. Congress Park will be gutted for McMansions because a) people want to live there and b) those people have the budgets to wipe out/remodel every single bungalow in the current environment and get rid to the lower-class individuals who are not homeowners. Something does have to change.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Sorry, nobody (except Gov. Polis and other Boulder leaders) cares whether Boulder has a low-ridership train or not. I can think of infinitely better uses of $2-3 billion (subway to under-served parts of the urban core).

Boulder, Longmont, and Polis care. Those three have enough power to make sure it happens before a subway in low-density streetcar neighborhoods can happen.

[The Dirt]

Good God, we just got another TakeFive clone who thinks their opinion stacks up against professional developers, planners, and reams of research and articles because their gut makes them feel a certain way.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Good God, we just got another TakeFive clone who thinks their opinion stacks up against professional developers, planners, and reams of research and articles because their gut makes them feel a certain way.

Sorry, you're obviously talking about me, so I suppose I've overstepped. I'll step back.

Proceed with bemoaning every policy and plan in a city that's main problem is being too desirable.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Sorry, nobody (except Gov. Polis and other Boulder leaders) cares whether Boulder has a low-ridership train or not. I can think of infinitely better uses of $2-3 billion (subway to under-served parts of the urban core).

I see. So we need to tax them (because they're in RTD), but we should only spend money on the inner city core and close surrounding neighborhoods. That'll work.. Just like it does for Parker

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

I see. So we need to tax them (because they're in RTD), but we should only spend money on the inner city core and close surrounding neighborhoods. That'll work.. Just like it does for Parker

Newsflash: Everyone is looking to leave RTD

We spend hardly anything on mass transit serving the inner city - I guess the outdated Welton Street light rail, and the MallRide (which is RTD's best service). Most of Denver's core is a transit donut hole, with ever-increasing traffic, pedestrian safety and parking issues. We just spent $6 billion on mass transit that skips the inner city, serves the Airport and some suburbs, which upsets all the other suburbs who then blame Denver.

We're operating buses and trains across thousands of square miles, from Longmont down to Castle Rock, and nobody is particularly happy except for the 9-5 commuters in a few important suburbs.

We've had the RTD debate for pages upon pages on here so I should really let it go, but that's a very baiting comment.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Nobody, nobody, thinks Cherry Creek or Douglas County schools are beneath DPS. Unfortunately.

Now that was hilarious!

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Plenty of people think Douglas County Schools are beneath DPS- just not the one's in Highlands Ranch or Parker. Just like people in DPS look down on Montbello and Green Valley Ranch, but not schools in Wash Park, University, Central Park, etc. Can't say anything about Cherry Creek, specifically Cherry Creek HS, it's the gold standard for the Front Range. Except when you get into the Cherry Creek Schools in Aurora, then people start looking down on them.

All this swirls around whether a school is too brown/black, too white, or that nice sweet-spot of diversity fueled by upper middle class households pouring their money and attention into the school.

I like your more nuanced perspective.

Schools tend to be judged primarily by academic performance and/or athletic performance. But the better (if impossible) way to evaluate school districts is by how well they serve their total student population.

Cherry Creek Schools
Not counting Boulder, CCSD is far and away the Best Run school district. They can check the academic box as well as athletics box but they are also well regarded by parents of "Special Needs" children as well as more basic 'learning disabilities'. Their breadth of educational services for their total student profile is outstanding.

CCSD hasn't lost an election for more funding since the 1960's. This not only allows for 'capability' but provides for better planning and efficiency. CCSD is right at 50% 'white' from a low of 26% at one HS to a high of 66% at another HS.

Aurora certainly an has ample supply of subsidized housing (etc) but I have a warm spot in my heart for the many parents who work two jobs so that their children can attend Cherry Creek Schools.

DougCo Schools
Aside from the political dissonance, the schools benefit from good demographics, good funding, good teachers etc so yeah their school are quite good.

JeffCo Schools
If you want to predict the outcome of an election for needed funding - flip a coin. One could say the schools are efficient (out of necessity); not really the best way to run a school district. Schools themselves are fine.

Adams Co Schools
may work with the tightest budget and demographic challenges but it appears they have a good collection of dedicated educators.

Denver Schools
I would use a different lens to evaluate Denver Schools. With the largest student population and being an urban district their challenges run the gamut. I am impressed with their support of public charter schools. Despite various controversies, their effort to provide for a large and very diverse population is impressive IMO. The schools are generally well funded and generally liked and appreciated by the parents.

[TakeFive]

You want to know what's wrong with me... I'll tell you what's wrong
"You can't handle the Truth" - Jack Nicholson

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Good God, we just got another TakeFive clone who thinks their opinion stacks up against professional developers, planners, and reams of research and articles because their gut makes them feel a certain way.

Non-Urban Alert; It is said that:

"You can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy."

So for those times when I get into a nostalgic mood of Colorado I'll dial up an old favorite of mine.

John Denver ♥ Take Me Home

Country roads, take me home
To the place I belong
West Virginia, mountain mama
Take me home, country roads

On other occasions I'll have a different Colorado/country mood.

Some have called "This Land Is Your Land" an alternative national anthem. A product of the Great Depression, Woodie Guthrie's song dates back to 1944. Bruce Springsteen covered the song in 2018.

Bruce Springsteen - This Land is Your Land (Woody Guthrie)

When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The voice come a-chanting and the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me

Don't take life so seriously that you fail to smell the (country) roses or enjoy the music-videos.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

I see. So we need to tax them (because they're in RTD), but we should only spend money on the inner city core and close surrounding neighborhoods. That'll work.. Just like it does for Parker

You're kidding, right? Such typical Boulder arrogance (We deserve a train...wahhh.) Boulder literally has its own entire bus network, funded and operated by RTD. Draw me a circle around another patch of 95,000 people anywhere in the metro area that has that same concentration of service. You won't find one.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Plenty of people think Douglas County Schools are beneath DPS- just not the one's in Highlands Ranch or Parker. Just like people in DPS look down on Montbello and Green Valley Ranch, but not schools in Wash Park, University, Central Park, etc. Can't say anything about Cherry Creek, specifically Cherry Creek HS, it's the gold standard for the Front Range. Except when you get into the Cherry Creek Schools in Aurora, then people start looking down on them.?

I am genuinely curious which you think are the acceptable DPS high schools these days (as I plan out the future...wondering my options...wanting to tee it up so they can follow in their fancy mother's footsteps; obviously not their father's). We are in East so I figure we are good to go. I am interested in the direction South is heading. I'd move to Cherry Creek schools before I move to Stapleton, but I assume they are on the list too (Northfield, is it?).

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Ich

people in the most current generations

Everyone alive on this earth is current.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You're kidding, right? Such typical Boulder arrogance (We deserve a train...wahhh.) Boulder literally has its own entire bus network, funded and operated by RTD. Draw me a circle around another patch of 95,000 people anywhere in the metro area that has that same concentration of service. You won't find one.



I am genuinely curious which you think are the acceptable DPS high schools these days (as I plan out the future...wondering my options...wanting to tee it up so they can follow in their fancy mother's footsteps; obviously not their father's). We are in East so I figure we are good to go. I am interested in the direction South is heading. I'd move to Cherry Creek schools before I move to Stapleton, but I assume they are on the list too (Northfield, is it?).

I'm definitely staying close to East so that my kids can go there. Very impressed with their culture.

I think North is also becoming somewhat like East, maybe a little more diverse, which is great. I think most families in DPS value diversity which is obviously a totally different planet than the suburban districts. Study to ace a test vs. study to ace life.

[bunt_q]

I'd be somewhat content for them to ace the test. Ivy still opens doors... you don't have to be any good at life with that on your resume.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Real estate development does not strictly follow MACRS accounting principles. Just off the top of my head...

You're correct, but I still got a chuckle out of my own comment and your corresponding response. There is not a significant amount of property being turned over every 20 years in this city though, please don't state that as fact. Maybe a couple buildings here or there, but I'm even coming up blank on that. The type of turnover I'm assuming is change of use and increase in density - not renovations of restaurants and breweries or office spaces. I am unaware of any million+ mcmansion in LoHi that has been assembled and torn down for an apartment project (or any other use). You do have a point on the CC Whole Foods though, then again that's just proposed.

Originally Posted by gopokes21

In fact, you viewing Denver development through the lens of sitting on a property for 39.5 years to maximize the depreciation schedule, explains the rest of what you've said.

Haha, ok. I definitely make investment decisions based on the MACR tables! Try to see the humor in my comment...please!

Originally Posted by gopokes21

It's not very novel to say something has changed for the worst, coinciding with an expansion in government. What's changed isn't the size of government or extent of urban planning, but rather the advanced-stage commodification of real estate.

I assume you honestly believe this and that's your right, but that is not a factual statement. Government just in the past 10 years has become incredibly more regulatory, complicated, and burdensome. The same government you think hasn't changed in 100 years now makes it impossible for little developers to pursue creative projects because they don't have the mountain of expertise, time, and money it takes to get through the process. I'm not going to sit here and complain about it because it works to my advantage, but my point is that those regulations, when added up, are not creating a better built environment in my opinion (just an opinion based on real life experience, not a presumed fact).

Originally Posted by gopokes21

We've had highly-prescriptive city plans before. In fact, Denver is one of the best examples of the "City Beautiful" movement.

Great point, but those bold plans are generally no longer possible because of things like environmental impact statements, condemnation and public takings, and weak public leadership due to career politicians (a crisis which transcends Denver). It could take 10 years to get through environmental impacts alone for something of that scale. We can't even get the City to buy a block in Arapahoe Square and turn it into a park to make that an actual livable neighborhood. Cities should get back to roads, bridges, and parks, and let the market take a bit more control over what people want - again just an opinion because our current model isn't working and our current model is prescriptive development determined by a few angry homeowners and city planners who are forced to work in a bubble of traditional norms.

Originally Posted by gopokes21

I disagree that the problem with development is setbacks, road width, life safety, fire department access, etc. Call me old fashioned, but I'd say those are all good things.

First off, have you ever gone through these things and completed a project? I am genuinely curious. Second, if these types of things aren't the problem, then what is? What is holding us back from producing adequate housing? We did for about 130 years up until the 1990's...then we started failing.

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Maybe we don't need a food truck court. It's not a great use of space, aside from Friday nights when it's busy.

Maybe we don't, but maybe we do. Are you to dictate what we do and don't need? You don't think at least SOME people would be interested in it? We have plenty of room under this circus tent for everyone/everything. You cannot possibly call for diversity and claim to be a progressive and then in the same paragraph say we don't need this or that!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I am genuinely curious which you think are the acceptable DPS high schools these days (as I plan out the future...wondering my options...wanting to tee it up so they can follow in their fancy mother's footsteps; obviously not their father's). We are in East so I figure we are good to go. I am interested in the direction South is heading. I'd move to Cherry Creek schools before I move to Stapleton, but I assume they are on the list too (Northfield, is it?).

East is great and South is on the up and up. GW has an excellent IB program that's one of the state's best. North is a waste that gets by on it's historical legacy at this point. The issue with the first three is that you basically have a two tier school of wealthy (mostly white) kids and then the poorer black and brown kids that are kept mostly separated with a resulting wide-ranging achievement gap. The disparity at GW was so bad that they had to abandon their current IB model and restructure it. East also has some issues with a preppy, 🞵🞵🞵🞵 culture that toppled the school leadership just prior to Covid. I don't think it was Columbine bad, but it certainly didn't give me confidence in the administration.

The DSST schools piss excellence at this point. Any kid that put's themselves into those meat grinders will have a bright future.

I like what Central Park (Stapleton) has going for it in Northfield High School. Dispersing the IB program across all classrooms seems to have aided in boosting test scores across all demographics, and reserving a good chunk of seats for kids out of the enrollment zone means that the school is pulling in kids from Green Valley Ranch, Montbello, and North Park Hill which diversifies the student body outside of what Central Park could produce locally. In four years it will likely be the among the best performing large high school in DPS and will (hopefully) have an athletic program that rivals Cherry Creek High School. We've got enough kids and money in the neighborhood to make it happen while maintaining diversity and a sense of inclusiveness.

Really, you don't have anything to worry about. Your kiddos future is pretty much guaranteed given the two-parent, mid-six figure household they're growing up in. That you're even thinking about schools right now is a strong indicator that that Ivy/public Ivy education is a lock.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by laniroj

You're correct, but I still got a chuckle out of my own comment and your corresponding response. There is not a significant amount of property being turned over every 20 years in this city though, please don't state that as fact. Maybe a couple buildings here or there, but I'm even coming up blank on that. The type of turnover I'm assuming is change of use and increase in density - not renovations of restaurants and breweries or office spaces. I am unaware of any million+ mcmansion in LoHi that has been assembled and torn down for an apartment project (or any other use). You do have a point on the CC Whole Foods though, then again that's just proposed.


Haha, ok. I definitely make investment decisions based on the MACR tables! Try to see the humor in my comment...please!


I assume you honestly believe this and that's your right, but that is not a factual statement. Government just in the past 10 years has become incredibly more regulatory, complicated, and burdensome. The same government you think hasn't changed in 100 years now makes it impossible for little developers to pursue creative projects because they don't have the mountain of expertise, time, and money it takes to get through the process. I'm not going to sit here and complain about it because it works to my advantage, but my point is that those regulations, when added up, are not creating a better built environment in my opinion (just an opinion based on real life experience, not a presumed fact).


Great point, but those bold plans are generally no longer possible because of things like environmental impact statements, condemnation and public takings, and weak public leadership due to career politicians (a crisis which transcends Denver). It could take 10 years to get through environmental impacts alone for something of that scale. We can't even get the City to buy a block in Arapahoe Square and turn it into a park to make that an actual livable neighborhood. Cities should get back to roads, bridges, and parks, and let the market take a bit more control over what people want - again just an opinion because our current model isn't working and our current model is prescriptive development determined by a few angry homeowners and city planners who are forced to work in a bubble of traditional norms.




First off, have you ever gone through these things and completed a project? I am genuinely curious. Second, if these types of things aren't the problem, then what is? What is holding us back from producing adequate housing? We did for about 130 years up until the 1990's...then we started failing.



Maybe we don't, but maybe we do. Are you to dictate what we do and don't need? You don't think at least SOME people would be interested in it? We have plenty of room under this circus tent for everyone/everything. You cannot possibly call for diversity and claim to be a progressive and then in the same paragraph say we don't need this or that!

You're not wrong about anything, and I do (now) appreciate your joke about viewing CRE through the (cynical) lens of depreciation.

I still am leery (hence why I went a tad negative in my response) of the anti "big government" rhetoric that just writes itself... but you're also right that City Beautiful would be virtually impossible today, but hey, at least the mountain of paperwork and legal proceedings would employ thousands.

My response that life safety zoning etc is important was kind of gaslighting, admittedly. I'm well aware of the excess in rigor but it's hard to really get a handle on the extent of the problem or what the problem is, because like I said, we should have life safety zoning etc. Requiring multiple fire truck turnarounds within say 40' despite 50' hoses... it gets discretionary but I see both angles. I also see the downside to "erring on the side of safety," which we all know isn't changing.

It's true that Denver is seeing fewer, but much bigger, projects these days. More like throwing a boulder into a pond versus thousands of little pebbles. It may be true that the regulatory environment, which has been retooled to handle boulders, may be making small deals harder but that's far from the impact that land cost has dealt to small deals. This is still more of a market function than a regulatory function, with the latter always trying to keep up.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You're kidding, right? Such typical Boulder arrogance (We deserve a train...wahhh.) Boulder literally has its own entire bus network, funded and operated by RTD. Draw me a circle around another patch of 95,000 people anywhere in the metro area that has that same concentration of service. You won't find one.

I see... So if you live in the city of Denver voted for a tax increase to improve parks, but then didn't improve any parks - you would think that's OK because we already have parks. And you would just pay your increased tax without question... yeah, OK

Also, I live in downtown Denver. I'm not like most people here that live in the burbs and complain about people living in the burbs.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

I see... So if you live in the city of Denver voted for a tax increase to improve parks, but then didn't improve any parks - you would think that's OK because we already have parks. And you would just pay your increased tax without question... yeah, OK

Also, I live in downtown Denver. I'm not like most people here that live in the burbs and complain about people living in the burbs.

We did just vote more money for parks and not get any parks! But that’s a different story. Denver does that all the time - vote some money, and just shift dollars to bolster the general fund.

Boulder got the Flatiron Flyer. Just because they wanted two things because they felt entitled and couldn’t choose... I don’t suppose you were around pre-Fastracks when that planning process was going on, so you probably have no idea what actually occurred. But I don’t hear you crying for Highlands Ranch and the SW extension that might never get built. Highlands Ranch got not a penny from Fastracks. Boulder can’t say that.

I, umm, don’t live in the burbs...

[SirLucasTheGreat]

If people here actually live in Denver, can we starting sharing photos or news regarding development? Most of the discussions here are frankly not very interesting or useful.

Here's a photo of the new Community Commons at the University of Denver

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Here is the Fitzgerald: