DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by RyanD

I think a lot of it is supply, no? We needed like 10 Spire's U/C yesterday. Chicago is so affordable because they have a crap ton of supply.

....and negative population growth. That's a surefire way to increase affordability is to have a glut because more people are leaving or dying in your city than are entering or being born.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Chicago is so affordable because they have a crap ton of supply.

Also it isn't THAT affordable. Your payment on a $300k property in Chicago is roughly the same as a $400k property in Denver thx to property taxes.

[TakeFive]

Source

Originally Posted by RyanD

Novel RiNo:

What was the last new project that covered this much dirt?
(And thanks Ryan for sharing)

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

...in addition to the homeless campers, making walking completely undesirable.

So you're saying that 'campers' were among the early pioneers and have "squatting rights?"

BTW, your post about 3930 Blake Street was well done. I wasn't familiar with Jon Ratner - interesting backstory.

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

Source

It's not often you find a post this thought provoking. Other than adding a dot or two I'm inclined to agree and brevity is its own quality after all.

Originally Posted by coolmandan03

..

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

....and negative population growth. That's a surefire way to increase affordability is to have a glut because more people are leaving or dying in your city than are entering or being born.

Sometimes I am really left wondering if this is most of what there is to it. Not to say all the very valid supply and demand arguments against anti-growth policies aren't also true. But a growing city may simply experience growing pains. It wouldn't be in the best interest of the real estate market to flood the market with so much supply that prices actually go down (even if this is what buyers/renters may want). It may be more realistic to let inflation and cost of living changes to catch up to current real estate prices over time - which could realistically take generations. Chicago could be an excellent example of this - a mature city that is no longer experiencing massive growth pressure can offer an urban lifestyle with a cheaper cost of living. Plus it already has pretty good mass transit, world class cultural facilities, and interesting neighborhoods that aren't constantly under construction.

It's too bad for just about anyone alive in Denver today if this is true. But perhaps it makes an argument to strike while the iron is hot and build the kind of dense, hopefully transit-supportive neighborhoods that can live on for the generations that come along later. And if one would rather live in a well established city and don't find the development process fun or interesting to live through, then move to a place like Chicago? Just sucks about the weather and lack of mountains though...

[bunt_q]

Well Chicago was a booming growing metropolis once. And managed to do it while remaining affordable to the working masses at the time. They did it by building tenement-ish multifamily housing by the gazillions of units. (The sort of housing that can still make people money, and never really was realistically going to undermine the value of my northside palace.) Alas, not really an approach we really welcome these days.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well Chicago was a booming growing metropolis once. And managed to do it while remaining affordable to the working masses at the time. They did it by building tenement-ish multifamily housing by the gazillions of units. (The sort of housing that can still make people money, and never really was realistically going to undermine the value of my northside palace.) Alas, not really an approach we really welcome these days.

Definitely true - but wasn't most of that also before the housing reforms of the Progressive Era? It seems there must be some sort of middle ground between single-family zoning and worker housing where multiple families are forced to share a bathroom because it makes the robber barons richer.

Granted, Chicago's housing stock is much more of the detached-townhome variety as opposed to the kinds of places that Jacob Riis photographed, but perhaps this is what you mean by tenement-ish. I admittedly have not explored every neighborhood there.

[twister244]

Yeah, supply plays a major role. There are just so so so many neighborhoods here that development can spill over into. What's so interesting is if you just look at population growth numbers, you would think Chicago is in dire straights. But the reality is that the exodus in really bad neighborhoods just happens to still be outpacing growth in the nicer neighborhoods.

With Denver, there just aren't many places untouched anymore, so in order to accommodate the growth, there needs to be MASSIVE upzoning and construction to keep up.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well Chicago was a booming growing metropolis once. And managed to do it while remaining affordable to the working masses at the time. They did it by building tenement-ish multifamily housing by the gazillions of units. (The sort of housing that can still make people money, and never really was realistically going to undermine the value of my northside palace.) Alas, not really an approach we really welcome these days.

It's not, but allowing 5-over-1 construction sans parking all over the city might be the modern day equivalent. My understanding is that's the cheapest per-unit style of construction. I'm all for fourplexes too which are relatively cheap given the wood frame construction and lack of elevator shaft, especially if the city preapproved certain designs so we can stamp them all over the place with no red tape. But we need to do more than that - those fourplexes are best suited for outer neighborhoods like East Colfax, Virginia Vale, Valverde. The more transit served, walkable, inner city neighborhoods should probably be targeted for 6 story multifamily all over the place. It'd be ugly for sure, but there are some things more important than aesthetics.

On the other hand, some of the residential buildings built under the "small lot exemption" (RIP, mostly) actually turned out pretty nice. We should be making it easier to build those. But nah, this is Denver.

[TakeFive]

Nope, not gonna apologize for my nostalgia

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Old Denver was not a great place, but people forget that or don't know because they've been here for less than 20 years. Because they don't know they assume the only change in these neighborhoods has been new construction and higher prices, so they want things to go back to how they were before. To not change. To be cheap and coooool again. But that Denver never was.

Well, I'd trade all my tomorrows for one single yesterday

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose
Well, feelin' good was easy, Lord, when he sang the blues
And feelin' good was good enough for me
Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee, yeah
Kris Kristofferson

It's not a Zero Sum game. It's not like one period has to be bad for another period to be good. It's not as though one period was all warts and today it's all candy canes and kisses.

Yes, the old days had more grit and grime
Yes, they've pushed the grit and grime out of the city
It's called gentrification. For better and worse it is what it is.

There were good times in the Old Days; a lot of good memories.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well Chicago was a booming growing metropolis once. And managed to do it while remaining affordable to the working masses at the time. They did it by building tenement-ish multifamily housing by the gazillions of units. (The sort of housing that can still make people money, and never really was realistically going to undermine the value of my northside palace.) Alas, not really an approach we really welcome these days.

Not exactly parallel but Denver tore down it's tenement-ish stuff. They called it Urban Renewal.

• Video Link

Chicago's not the best comparison for many reasons. For one its population is 8.5 million. It's always been one of the original Big Cities.

[TakeFive]

Before we drive off a cliff, let's look over the hill and around the corner


Source

Couple of anecdotes:

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news...-post-pandemic-rules-on-remote-work.html

USAA has announced how its 36,000-plus employees in across the country will — or will not — return to the office.

USAA... has a major Arizona presence. The company has about 4,500 Valley employees... “We made the decision to sublease the Norterra West building in Phoenix to better reflect our workspace needs," Bradley Russell, spokesman for USAA said. USAA owns two buildings in Phoenix at 1 North Norterra Drive, totaling 991,054 square feet, according to CoStar data.

‘There is no going back to the status quo’: what the return to the office will look like this fall
Published Sat, Jun 26 By Abigail Johnson Hess - CNBC

High-profile companies like Microsoft, Apple and Google say they will be using a hybrid work model, where workers spend time working both from the office and from home, going forward. And business leaders don’t seem to think that shift is temporary. In the LaSalle survey, 77% of respondents said they believe their workforce will use a hybrid model through next year.

It's interesting how 'we' bemoan the high cost of single family homes and then immediately pivot to adding density. One has little to do with the other. Even more interesting is that a hybrid work model may be even more reason to live outside the city center.

Could Denver be sitting in the Catbird Seat?

Denver's CBD is not too small; it's not too big; it's just about right. Then the density quickly drops off to 4/5-stories to 17/18-stories for the most part. This may just be an ideal density going forward. Also, consider the amount of office space that has been built outside the CBD.

Speaking of nostalgia

There's a lot to be said for preserving historical structures and neighborhood character where it makes good sense. It's what makes Denver so cool and comfortable. You would lose more than you'd gain by destroying the best part of intercity neighborhoods.

The Most Beautiful Historic Neighborhoods in America
3/17/2016 By Jay Gentile - Thrillist

Nah, Denver isn't represented but Denver has plenty of history to be proud of and worth preserving.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Now that we know that buildings can and do collapse following the tragedy in Surfside, Florida (near Miami) how many more Humpty Dumpty buildings are out their would you guess?

Specific to Denver
any thoughts on what might be a 'collapsible' building? Any favorite picks for buildings you'd like to see imploded before they fall down?

I looked at a building 6 or 7 years ago, cast in place concrete from the 60's - massive structure with huge slab thickness. The slab between each 4-square of columns had literally sagged 2-3 inches. Took a quick and polite pass on that one. These structures exist, but most everything is pretty well built in this country. China on the other hand...at least what makes it to the news, deals with this regularly.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Old Denver was not a great place, but people forget that or don't know because they've been here for less than 20 years. Because they don't know they assume the only change in these neighborhoods has been new construction and higher prices, so they want things to go back to how they were before. To not change. To be cheap and coooool again. But that Denver never was.

A statesman in the making. I really wish all the newcomers would come to this realization that change didn't start happening at the moment they arrived...well said Moji

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

It's not, but allowing 5-over-1 construction sans parking all over the city might be the modern day equivalent. My understanding is that's the cheapest per-unit style of construction. I'm all for fourplexes too which are relatively cheap given the wood frame construction and lack of elevator shaft, especially if the city preapproved certain designs so we can stamp them all over the place with no red tape. But we need to do more than that - those fourplexes are best suited for outer neighborhoods like East Colfax, Virginia Vale, Valverde. The more transit served, walkable, inner city neighborhoods should probably be targeted for 6 story multifamily all over the place. It'd be ugly for sure, but there are some things more important than aesthetics.

On the other hand, some of the residential buildings built under the "small lot exemption" (RIP, mostly) actually turned out pretty nice. We should be making it easier to build those. But nah, this is Denver.

Lots of agreement here except on the inner city hoods. Those could easily accomodate 3-3.5 story dense infill if parking minimums and onerous setbacks were relaxed/removed. That kind of infill is all over inner Chi-town and no reason Denver couldn't significantly solve it's housing issue with this type of density that only 1 story taller than your average mcmansion nowadays. The fire department could also consider relaxing it's ever growing safety standards and equipment accommodations, which would come at a de minimis life-safety cost, but I think the risk is worth it to help people find housing and live better lives.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by laniroj

A statesman in the making. I really wish all the newcomers would come to this realization that change didn't start happening at the moment they arrived...well said Moji

Are newcomers really the biggest offenders, though? Most of the NIMBYs I encounter begin every sentence with "I've lived in Denver for XX years..." Implying that they somehow have absorbed more rights over the years than everyone else and haven't been suckling on the housing shortage teat at the expense of everyone else.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Are newcomers really the biggest offenders, though? Most of the NIMBYs I encounter begin every sentence with "I've lived in Denver for XX years..." Implying that they somehow have absorbed more rights over the years than everyone else and haven't been suckling on the housing shortage teat at the expense of everyone else.

Fact: If you ain’t a native, you’re a newcomer.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Are newcomers really the biggest offenders, though? Most of the NIMBYs I encounter begin every sentence with "I've lived in Denver for XX years..." Implying that they somehow have absorbed more rights over the years than everyone else and haven't been suckling on the housing shortage teat at the expense of everyone else.

That's a good point - if someone has been here less than 20 years then they fall into the category of people who have only experienced Denver on the upswing. The older longer-term NIMBY's have convinced them that Denver was always wonderful and that it was "highrises" that are the problem. Those young ones are most of the subaru-loving-hardcore-outdoor-I-came-here-5-years-ago-and-now-that-I'm-ready-to-buy-I-hate-construction NIMBYs that I was talking about in my comment.

I feel like the people you are talking about are the boomers in West Highland and Hilltop and Wash Park and Platte Park etc. etc. that bought their beautiful victorian palace for pennies 25+ years ago and now that they've chased the homeless and the poor away from their neighborhoods they don't want anything to change: Nothing over 2 stories shall be built ever again. Architecture that does not match the neighborhood will be proscribed. Renters are evil and should be allowed in "other" neighborhoods, but not here in my neighborhood. Retail is ok, as long as it is small and can thrive in the strip mall from the 50s that sits in a sea of parking and can never be replaced because that would be change and CHANGE IS BAD. And most importantly - "I am not a part of the housing shortage or the housing price crisis in this city, because I bought 30 years ago for nothing and I'm not in real estate" [spoiler for lurking NIMBYs of this generation - it's mostly because of you and your fear of change and preventing densification in our city center that has driven up prices by restricting supply and causing overheated demand, forcing the people who don't have tons of money to move further out and drive in, further increasing traffic and pollution here in Denver. Aggressive, exploitative real estate developers followed YOU to these neighborhoods, not the other way around.]

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Saw that Polis signed the Front Range Passenger Rail District legislation yesterday. Hopefully they can get federal funding from Amtrak/new infrastructure bill

[Ndj]

I'm not sure I see the point of attempting to assign blame via sweeping, data-less generalizations

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Looks like there are two new twelve story projects in RiNo that have converted to apartments due to the pandemic. 35th and Wynkoop and 35th and Chestnut (Flora). The Flora project is anticipating a July groundbreaking. Not sure about the 35th and Wynkoop project.

https://businessden.com/2021/06/30/devel...-in-rino-instead-of-hospitality-project/

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Ndj

I'm not sure I see the point of attempting to assign blame via sweeping, data-less generalizations

I assume that was to me and my ranting. I'm curious about what kind of data you want -

An academic paper that relates regulation like density and zoning restrictions to higher costs? https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20536/w20536.pdf
OR maybe this one: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.32.1.3

How about a really damning one, the number of new housing starts by state https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/ (click on Annual History by State by Structure)
So you can see how there was less housing built in Colorado last year than there was in 1983. There were roughly half the people here then. That's a problem.

And what could be the source of this problem and the inspiration for my ranting? Maybe groups like https://www.facebook.com/NoHighrises/ who fought against 5 story apartments 2 miles from downtown? The Lakewood residents that were so angry about housing for the homeless possibly being built on a huge empty field that it sparked a move to pass legislation that restricts construction city-wide? The Denver city council members that will cry about how expensive it is here, but happily fight rezoning for housing and not offer other solutions? (not building anything, anywhere, ever is not a solution)

I guess I don't have a smoking gun to blame Denver's housing problems on land-rich people fighting for their views and "stability", so feel free to write it off as sweeping, data-less generalizations!