DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by rds70

How is this even possible?

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I admittedly don't know the specific history of these houses or whether the additions came before or after Denver's first 1925 zoning code. But judging by the "streamline moderne" style of the retail addition to the structure on the corner, I would guess these changes happened in the 1920s or 30s. If I remember my Denver history correctly, Colfax didn't really become the kind of seedy place you describe until the the late 1940s or 50s. By the 1950s, houses like these would have simply been demolished and replaced with a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 strip mall or gas station (which you also see plenty of along Colfax)....

Most of these additions are from the 1950's when Colfax became the it-spot for those loooong Cadillac's.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Most of these additions are from the 1950's when Colfax became the it-spot for those loooong Cadillac's.

Interesting - that's later than I would have suspected. I was able to track down this research from the Landmark Preservation Commission staff report about the history of the structures in question:

"1600 and 1608 E Colfax are representational of the district’s shift from a residential area to a commercial corridor. Originally, large corner mansions with primary frontage on E Colfax, slowly commercial storefronts were added to the buildings. Initially a small commercial space to the west of 1608 that allowed each structure to retain its residential character, then a streamline moderne addition completed in 1938 to 1600, and finally a full commercial storefront on 1608 in the 1950s. These two mansions with commercial storefronts are few of the protected structures along East Colfax that represent this transition of the street from a residential avenue to a commercial corridor."

So it sounds like we are both kind of correct here. I'll admit I'm surprised people were still making those kind of modifications as late as the 1950s. But the Streamline Moderne addition does indeed date to the 1930s, and the first commercial modification happened even earlier (this blurb doesn't provide a date).

This piece from the Denver Public Library provides a great overview about the history of the street. It does sound like the transformation into an auto-oriented commercial corridor was in full swing by the 1920s. The seedy character really didn't come into place until the 1960s. From the article: "The 1960s and 1970s also were the heyday of 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 bars and 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 explicit theaters. Colfax became home to many of them. Denver razed blocks of seedy shops on Larimer Street in 1967 and some of them were reborn on Colfax." It's worth noting that this is also the era when Bob Dylan was known to frequent the area, and that Jack Kerouac was also attracted to the "seedier" side of Denver, so I personally feel that perhaps these things sometimes give cities character and a "live and let live" attitude toward them can go a long way.

As for the "🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 store" - it's worth considering that this is the same stretch of Colfax that is home to Denver's only lesbian bar and a gay sports bar named "Tight End"? I can guarantee that many people out there appreciate that Colfax remains a place where these things can exist.

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

RiNo is a mystery to me. I drive through it every evening on my way home from work. Chain-link fences, ugly old warehouses, tumble weeds, no trees - the sun just beats down on the neighborhood. Very few pedestrians. Why is this concrete wasteland so hip and desirable?

When I get to Cap Hill it’s like a totally different world. Pedestrians everywhere. Thick green foliage protecting the neighborhood from the sun.

Watching RiNo develop into an actual neighborhood is fun. It’s blowing up right now. I wish I could travel time and see what it’s like 20 years from now. I bet I’d be shocked.

The reason it’s desirable is that it is close to downtown and there are places to live there.

We made it illegal to build new housing by incremental densification in the core neighborhoods like happened naturally in Cap Hill so the only place you are going to see new development is in industrial wastelands or blocks nuked by the DURA in the 70’s.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by jhwk

The reason it’s desirable is that it is close to downtown and there are places to live there.

We made it illegal to build new housing by incremental densification in the core neighborhoods like happened naturally in Cap Hill so the only place you are going to see new development is in industrial wastelands or blocks nuked by the DURA in the 70’s.

Yep, this is why. Even when a developer proposed to turn Cap Hill's parking lot ringed, mini-big box Whole Foods into a five story apartment building with a new grocery space in the bottom, the neighborhood freaked out about density. Five stories was apparently shocking since the immediately adjacent structures were only three floors tall (ignoring the fact that there are a ton of midrises within a few blocks' walk in any direction). I remember engaging with Redditors who thought that the mixed use structure was inappropriate and out of character with the neighborhood (argument being while there *is* a mix of uses in the neighborhood, it's mostly single story commercial on the same block as multi story residential - not much of both in one structure. Insanity!) So the developer pulled out and we still have an ugly, suburban grocery store in the middle of our arguably most urban neighborhood.

I don't know much about Denver's pre-2010ish zoning history, but it seems pretty clear that the incremental development party ended in the 1960s.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by rds70

I would absolutely love to live in the building represented by this image, unfortunately I would absolutely loathe living in the building represented by the back half (that you can see dividing the side facade in half). I can ALMOST get what the architect is trying to say/contrast and I can just imagine the fun discussion/critique that a bunch of designers would have with it. But for me the back half is unforgivable. It immediately reminded me of the barcode building in Pueblo.. and when you're immediately reminded of a building in Pueblo by new architecture in Denver, you've failed for me. I can see this building being someone's jam though.

[mhays]

The "gash through the side" thing appears to be a growing trend. This one is more ambitious than the ones in my area though.

[Robert.hampton]

Looks like the strange 5br unit co-living thingy at 16th and pearl has made it through the permitting process.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

I would absolutely love to live in the building represented by this image, unfortunately I would absolutely loathe living in the building represented by the back half (that you can see dividing the side facade in half). I can ALMOST get what the architect is trying to say/contrast and I can just imagine the fun discussion/critique that a bunch of designers would have with it. But for me the back half is unforgivable. It immediately reminded me of the barcode building in Pueblo.. and when you're immediately reminded of a building in Pueblo by new architecture in Denver, you've failed for me. I can see this building being someone's jam though.

I see your point, since that's the alley facing side it's likely that it will be blocked out by another project in the next 5 years or so. So the fugly portion isn't a terrible concern in my mind.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Looks like the strange 5br unit co-living thingy at 16th and pearl has made it through the permitting process.

Awesome! I can't wait for another parking lot to be eradicated in my hood.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by jhwk

The reason it’s desirable is that it is close to downtown and there are places to live there.

We made it illegal to build new housing by incremental densification in the core neighborhoods like happened naturally in Cap Hill so the only place you are going to see new development is in industrial wastelands or blocks nuked by the DURA in the 70’s.

Just add transit, and the city will grow. Fail to add transit, and the city can't grow (ahem Cap Hill, most of SE Denver).

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

There’s a public hearing this evening at 5:30 regarding the rezoning of Golden Triangle. If my understanding is correct, this will be the final hearing before city council votes on it. If I can get off work early enough, I will attend.

GT rezoning just passed unanimously.

The council received 6 written comments from the public in support of it and surprisingly only 3 comments in opposition. (There were also 7 comments neither in support nor opposition that largely consisted of recommendations for more height and whatnot.)

A cranky old man called in to complain about what he perceived as the council’s lack of reverence for the neighborhood’s cultural significance. Other than that, there were no public comments.

The council seemed really enthusiastic about passing this thing - especially the affordable housing aspects of it.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Yep, this is why. Even when a developer proposed to turn Cap Hill's parking lot ringed, mini-big box Whole Foods into a five story apartment building with a new grocery space in the bottom, the neighborhood freaked out about density. Five stories was apparently shocking since the immediately adjacent structures were only three floors tall (ignoring the fact that there are a ton of midrises within a few blocks' walk in any direction). I remember engaging with Redditors who thought that the mixed use structure was inappropriate and out of character with the neighborhood (argument being while there *is* a mix of uses in the neighborhood, it's mostly single story commercial on the same block as multi story residential - not much of both in one structure. Insanity!) So the developer pulled out and we still have an ugly, suburban grocery store in the middle of our arguably most urban neighborhood.

It does make it easy to drive my F-150 eight blocks or so and park within a 100-foot walk of the front of the grocery store to buy artisanal cheese, however,

[TakeFive]

I hope you didn't forget the artisanal crackers?

Source

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It does make it easy to drive my F-150 eight blocks or so and park within a 100-foot walk of the front of the grocery store to buy artisanal cheese, however,

Fun Story
For New Years, instead of the always favorite of fillet mignon, Caesar salad and broccoli (or baked potato), I decided to be creative. Picked up 5 artisan cheeses and 4 boxes of artisan crackers. Everybody got 5 large shrimp and there was herring in cream sauce and crab meat. Everyone also got a side of Lemon pasta salad (that you can get at Sprouts). Everybody's still talking about the fun selection.

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

RiNo is a mystery to me. I drive through it every evening on my way home from work. Chain-link fences, ugly old warehouses, tumble weeds, no trees - the sun just beats down on the neighborhood. Very few pedestrians. Why is this concrete wasteland so hip and desirable?

When I get to Cap Hill it’s like a totally different world. Pedestrians everywhere. Thick green foliage protecting the neighborhood from the sun.

Watching RiNo develop into an actual neighborhood is fun. It’s blowing up right now. I wish I could travel time and see what it’s like 20 years from now. I bet I’d be shocked.

Originally Posted by jhwk

The reason it’s desirable is that it is close to downtown and there are places to live there.

We made it illegal to build new housing by incremental densification in the core neighborhoods like happened naturally in Cap Hill...

jhwk hits the nail.

Cap Hill was a long time favorite of Denverites and grew organically for over 100 years. It was a neighborhood of diverse housing from early on.

As density was added over the decades - while scattered around - if you take a wide-angle view, generally the highest density was added closest So Broadway going east. From north to south you see a similar pattern. Starting at 14th Ave density seems to drop a tad every two blocks and is especially noticeable south of 8th Ave and even more so south of 6th Ave.

The Park Appeal
Higher density was also added near Cheeseman Park especially on the north and east sides (IIRC). Higher density also popped up north of Wash Park.

Over the last decade
Even more density was added along So Broadway. Additionally redevelopment happened on the north side of Speer Blvd as well as the south side.

Governors Park
is now coming into focus. I am curious to see AvalonBay's architectural plans for a 13-story apartment at the southeast corner of East 7th Avenue and Sherman Street. I'm guessing they will use their Avalon brand which is upscale-sophisticated as apposed to the Ava brand they're currently finishing up at 2600 Lawrence Street. Ava RiNo will be a more of an eclectic-lifestyle brand. Of course a lot of the branding-quality comes from the finish on the inside, not the outside.

Being a neighborhood, Cap Hill has nice things like trees and bushes and more trees and grass. RiNo not so much.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

I remember engaging with Redditors who thought that the mixed use structure was inappropriate and out of character with the neighborhood (argument being while there *is* a mix of uses in the neighborhood, it's mostly single story commercial on the same block as multi story residential - not much of both in one structure. Insanity!) So the developer pulled out and we still have an ugly, suburban grocery store in the middle of our arguably most urban neighborhood.

There was a time when developers didn't propose 'mixed-use' projects because you couldn't find financing for such a speculative and unconventional proposal.

You made me do it

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

I don't know much about Denver's pre-2010ish zoning history, but it seems pretty clear that the incremental development party ended in the 1960s.

Having no zoning clue myself I called on my BFF. Google came through very nicely. In fact I found it next door at Denver Urbanism

Zoning Codes—Tools for Segregation or Creating Complete Neighborhoods?
February 18, 2019 By Gosia Kung

While I'm not a fan of the liberal obsession around so-called 'institutional' racism, Gosia also provides a nice factual history with respect to Denver zoning. How much was intended 'racism' I suspect is debatable but way, way back perhaps so - but could we please leave the ancient past and join more contemporary times.

Denver’s first zoning code dates to 1925 when, under Mayor Stapleton, the city was divided into residential, commercial, and industrial areas. The ordinance was to promote the “health, safety, morals, or general welfare.”

HISTORY OF FAIR HOUSING
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

On April 11, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which was meant as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 1968 Act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, 🞵🞵🞵, (and as amended) handicap and family status. Title VIII of the Act is also known as the Fair Housing Act (of 1968).

I find it interesting that 'early on' multi-family zoning was assumed to be a tool for racism. It could also be viewed as providing housing for those of lower socioeconomic status which often meant minorities. Surely racism was more rampant prior to the 1960's (and still exists today). If I were a minority I'd be incensed that the real problem of equal educational and economic opportunity were the real villains as apposed to providing more multifamily housing zoning (although I understand the correlation).

How many are aware of this?

Most big cities have become more racially segregated: study
June 21, 2021 By Hannah Sparks

An alarming new report has revealed that a majority of the country’s biggest cities are even more segregated today than they were more than 30 years ago. Cities considered the most segregated include New York — which ranks No. 1 — as well as Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Los Angeles and Philadelphia, among others.

Nearly 81% of the country’s metropolitan centers — 169 out of 209 cities — are more segregated than in 1990, according to a new study... The new report by the University of California Berkeley’s Othering & Belonging Institute, which “flies in the face of prevailing perceptions that the US has become less segregated since the Civil Rights era,” found that a majority of regions with more than 200,000 residents were more segregated in 2019 than they were in 1990.

Southern cities like Miami, as well as Savannah, Georgia, and San Antonio, Texas saw the greatest decrease in segregation. I suspect this result has a lot to do with 'cultural' preferences.

I swear, my original intent was only to learn about the history of Denver zoning and THAT'S ALL. In my mind's eye it is totally logical to separate uses by function and the typical neighborhood where several types of homes were built just makes too much sense. But for those convinced it was an evil conspiracy your are entitled. The newer style of mixed use is fairly recent and makes great sense but it doesn't totally divorce itself from the past. You're not likely to find a 7-Eleven in the middle of a housing block.

As much as I like Capitol Hill including its mixed density does not mean that mixed density everywhere would be desirable.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

How significant will the zoning update in Golden Triangle be? I understand they want to encourage non-residential development but is the market really primed for office or hotel development in that neighborhood?

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

While I'm not a fan of the liberal obsession around so-called 'institutional' racism, Gosia also provides a nice factual history with respect to Denver zoning. How much was intended 'racism' I suspect is debatable but way, way back perhaps so - but could we please leave the ancient past and join more contemporary times.

Here are some examples of institutional racism in housing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_discrimination
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/lenders-...a-rate-80percent-higher-than-whites.html

The GI bill famously denied black servicemen the same benefits as everyone else. 75 years of these kinds of policies along with restrictive zoning has created a generation of people that built massive generational wealth that they can and have bequeathed to their children. Meanwhile, people of color were systematically denied these opportunities through lack of mortgage lending and restrictive zoning once explicit race-based neighborhood covenants became illegal.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

How significant will the zoning update in Golden Triangle be? I understand they want to encourage non-residential development but is the market really primed for office or hotel development in that neighborhood?

What I've heard about this is that it's mostly a complete disaster and fails to address anything important. It actually encourages more parking, somehow, and approaches development with far more sticks than carrots, likely driving a flurry of development approvals before the rules change, followed by development dropping off a cliff afterwards.

However, this was as of a few months ago and I haven't been following close enough to see if they've revised anything.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

What I've heard about this is that it's mostly a complete disaster and fails to address anything important. It actually encourages more parking, somehow, and approaches development with far more sticks than carrots, likely driving a flurry of development approvals before the rules change, followed by development dropping off a cliff afterwards.

However, this was as of a few months ago and I haven't been following close enough to see if they've revised anything.

As I understand it, the only change made regarding parking is that the minimum parking requirements are gone. There is no longer any requirement.

However, no new parking maximums were implemented either. Now it’s a free-for-all - totally left up to the market. And, as I understand it, demand for parking is still high and some lenders are still a bit reluctant to finance a project that doesn’t include parking. So I’m guessing we’re likely to see much more parking added to the neighborhood. At least now though (as I understand it) it can no longer exist in a form that is hideously exposed at street level.

The GT is a weird animal. It’s not very well connected to public transportation other than bus, and the folks who live in the high-end units existing now (and currently under construction or proposed) aren’t likely to ride the “0.”

Hopefully the carrots designed to encourage affordable housing actually work and we’ll see more people walking the hood and taking the bus. Hopefully we’ll see more diversity come to GT. If not, well developers can still build up to 200’ (25’ higher than most of the neighborhood currently allows) for general form buildings (8/1 FAR which is not far off from what is currently being built), or 250’ for point towers - WITHOUT meeting any affordable housing requirements. Should they choose to chase the carrots, they can go up to 250’ for general form and 325’ for point towers.

So in general the height limits and allowable density are being raised, independent of any carrots or sticks, and the parking situation, while not ideal, can only improve - even if not enough to be to the satisfaction of us urbanists.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

How significant will the zoning update in Golden Triangle be? I understand they want to encourage non-residential development but is the market really primed for office or hotel development in that neighborhood?

As I understand it, there are some carrots meant to encourage office or hotel that will likely be largely ignored by developers and the neighborhood will likely remain mostly residential. However, when it comes to retail, there’s a stick that might prove effective: On certain streets, development must now engage with the pedestrian environment in one of a few ways: active use (which I’m guessing basically means retail?), open space accessible to the public, and public art.

Now, I’ve been saying, “as I understand it” a lot because I’m only going off of what I gleaned from sitting through that long and tedious public hearing. I have yet to dig through all the PDF’s. I could be wrong about some of this stuff.