DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Pretty much all of them. The B Line should not be finished as currently proposed.

As for what Boulder should do, they need to allow growth above the current asinine growth limit.

My understanding is that the limit hasn't been an issue, according to this article

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/11/16/boulder-1-percent-growth-limit-front-range-controversy/

But for the nearly six years from 2014 through this week, the rule has had a limited impact in Boulder. Hundreds of dwellings have been approved through exemptions for certain housing types, while new residences that count toward the annual growth cap never came close to approaching it, according to city data on the rule, which works by each year making available a certain number of “allocations,” or stamps of approval for new units to receive building permits and ensure compliance with the 1% limit.

Even when combining new homes exempt from the growth limit with those that count toward the 1% cap, the city approved units equaling just 67.8% of 3,529 allocations available over the six-year period. Development projects are seldom held up by the growth management rule, officials said.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by Denver

Per the Davis Partnership Page, One River North (3930 Blake Street) has broken ground.

It certainly looks like shoring/foundation work is about to begin. Some pics from Saturday:

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

My understanding is that the limit hasn't been an issue, according to this article

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/11/16/boulder-1-percent-growth-limit-front-range-controversy/

The limit hasn’t been an issue thanks to the zoning and other bureaucratic red tape that makes it impossible to build anything but a $2 million+ house. 60,000 people commute (mostly by car) to work everyday in a city of 100,000. That’s fucking crazy. And it’s not because they don’t want to live in Boulder, it’s because Boulder has placed the burden of providing any sort of attainable housing for its workforce on its suburban neighbors.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

The limit hasn’t been an issue thanks to the zoning and other bureaucratic red tape that makes it impossible to build anything but a $2 million+ house. 60,000 people commute (mostly by car) to work everyday in a city of 100,000. That’s fucking crazy. And it’s not because they don’t want to live in Boulder, it’s because Boulder has placed the burden of providing any sort of attainable housing for its workforce on its suburban neighbors.

So what should Boulder do?

[ams5280]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

So what should Boulder do?

Build more housing. Especially near downtown, campus, and transit.

A great example is a lot of 15th and Canyon containing a liquor store. A student housing developer purchased the lot and believes they can fit 150 units on the lot with height restrictions and linkage fees. The lot sold for $16.6 million, which works out to $111,000 in land costs per unit alone. Add in a $30/SF linkage fee[/URL], and that’s ~$126,000 per 500 SF unit before you’ve even factored in design, permitting, construction, etc. Think you’ll ever have anything close to affordable without massive subsidies?

No to mention, when supportive youth housing was proposed close to downtown Boulder, the neighbors were quick to say, “We support this, but NOT HERE, NOT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD”.

Even advocating for a better B line that actually goes where people want to go would be useful. Instead, all these people who say they’ll ride the train couldn’t even locate Boulder Junction on a Map and I seriously doubt it will have an impact on commutes.

Instead, they’re focused on things like preserving a campus-adjacent strip mall to maintain “shopping opportunities” when it’s mainly fast food, coffee shops, and couldn’t support a grocery store (Base Mar Shopping Center).

[mhays]

The linkage fee probably applies to common areas too. If 150 sf, add $4,500.

Boulder could upzone, like those absurd four-story limits that apparently apply in core areas.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by ams5280

Build more housing. Especially near downtown, campus, and transit.

A great example is a lot of 15th and Canyon containing a liquor store. A student housing developer purchased the lot and believes they can fit 150 units on the lot with height restrictions and linkage fees. The lot sold for $16.6 million, which works out to $111,000 in land costs per unit alone. Add in a $30/SF linkage fee[/URL], and that’s ~$126,000 per 500 SF unit before you’ve even factored in design, permitting, construction, etc. Think you’ll ever have anything close to affordable without massive subsidies?

The $15000 fee per 500 sq ft won't make the difference between selling/not selling - the developer will simply add it to the price.

Boulder is a desirable place. Desirability and affordability tend to trend opposite to each other.

No to mention, when supportive youth housing was proposed close to downtown Boulder, the neighbors were quick to say, “We support this, but NOT HERE, NOT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD”.

If you look at where students dominate and where the police are busiest, there's a big overlap. Not everyone living in Boulder wants to be around the students - who are continually "refreshed" with new young adults spreading their wings (and proving that young adults often make very bad decisions) each and every year.

Also, since Boulder is pretty much held hostage to what CU wants, as CU keeps increasing its enrollment cap and raising tuition, Boulder is subject to more and more wealthier and wealthier students. There's nothing Boulder can do about it, either.

Even advocating for a better B line that actually goes where people want to go would be useful. Instead, all these people who say they’ll ride the train couldn’t even locate Boulder Junction on a Map and I seriously doubt it will have an impact on commutes.

Perhaps.

Instead, they’re focused on things like preserving a campus-adjacent strip mall to maintain “shopping opportunities” when it’s mainly fast food, coffee shops, and couldn’t support a grocery store (Base Mar Shopping Center).

There's another grocery store (Sprouts) 1/2 mile directly to the east, and of course, the large Williams Village housing complex literally next door.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mhays

The linkage fee probably applies to common areas too. If 150 sf, add $4,500.

Boulder could upzone, like those absurd four-story limits that apparently apply in core areas.

The height limit has been in place since 1971, and I doubt getting rid of it entirely would have much public support, nor would increasing it significantly.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

The height limit has been in place since 1971, and I doubt getting rid of it entirely would have much public support, nor would increasing it significantly.

Q: ‘what should Boulder do?’

A: ‘adopt policies that will allow for denser, walkable and more sustainable neighborhoods that don’t encourage sprawl’

Rebuttal ‘that wouldn’t be popular’

Yes, no shit, anything that would allow working class people into their bubble or force Boulder to trend towards the sustainable community it pretends it is (but certainly isn’t) wouldn’t be popular. That’s why Boulder sucks.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Q: ‘what should Boulder do?’

A: ‘adopt policies that will allow for denser, walkable and more sustainable neighborhoods that don’t encourage sprawl’

Rebuttal ‘that wouldn’t be popular’

Yes, no shit, anything that would allow working class people into their bubble or force Boulder to trend towards the sustainable community it pretends it is (but certainly isn’t) wouldn’t be popular. That’s why Boulder sucks.

The same criticism of Boulder could apply to the entire metro area - it’s less and less affordable daily and the sprawl is growing by leaps and bounds. Boulder isn’t the sole guilty party but does make for a convenient scapegoat.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

The same criticism of Boulder could apply to the entire metro area - it’s less and less affordable daily and the sprawl is growing by leaps and bounds. Boulder isn’t the sole guilty party but does make for a convenient scapegoat.

The rest of the metro obviously has blood on its hands, but Boulder is more guilty than most of the region. If you've been here for more than a minute you know that the rest of the Front Range isn't left off the hook by those of us who are disappointed in our regional and state leadership to permit adequate housing supply and to move towards a sustainable future.

Boulder is the most expensive city in the metro by a good amount. It's one of the Front Range's primary economic nodes with lots of jobs at the university, in tech and biomedicine. It has arguably the best transit coverage in the state and pretty good bike and pedestrian infrastructure for Colorado. It is surrounded by one of the best urban trail systems in the United States. The accessible nature and the multimodal mobility options make it more ready and appropriate for density than just about anywhere else. No other part of the metro is surrounded by a green belt that pushes sprawl miles farther out than it otherwise would be. It's also the most traditionally "progressive" city in the interior west, so Boulder should and does know better than this. There's no defending it.

They fear change so much but Boulder would be fantastic if they modeled themselves on Swiss cities. It doesn't have to be Vancouver. Small scale incremental density surrounded by nature.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

The same criticism of Boulder could apply to the entire metro area - it’s less and less affordable daily and the sprawl is growing by leaps and bounds. Boulder isn’t the sole guilty party but does make for a convenient scapegoat.

You're not making sense.

Whataboutism doesn't absolve Boulder. Also, Boulder has very high demand, on a different level than most places.

It's also a place where infill could be very walkable and transit-served.

As for the $15,000 ($19,500 more accurately, not including financing costs etc.) added to housing units not affecting buyers...have you ever met a buyer? And obviously that would be the difference between penciling or not penciling for a lot of projects.

Edit: Agent Orange said it better.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

The rest of the metro obviously has blood on its hands, but Boulder is more guilty than most of the region. If you've been here for more than a minute you know that the rest of the Front Range isn't left off the hook by those of us who are disappointed in our regional and state leadership to permit adequate housing supply and to move towards a sustainable future.

Boulder is the most expensive city in the metro by a good amount. It's one of the Front Range's primary economic nodes with lots of jobs at the university, in tech and biomedicine. It has arguably the best transit coverage in the state and pretty good bike and pedestrian infrastructure for Colorado. It is surrounded by one of the best urban trail systems in the United States. The accessible nature and the multimodal mobility options make it more ready and appropriate for density than just about anywhere else. No other part of the metro is surrounded by a green belt that pushes sprawl miles farther out than it otherwise would be. It's also the most traditionally "progressive" city in the interior west, so Boulder should and does know better than this. There's no defending it.

They fear change so much but Boulder would be fantastic if they modeled themselves on Swiss cities. It doesn't have to be Vancouver. Small scale incremental density surrounded by nature.

Boulder's population density according to

http://www.usa.com/rank/colorado-state--population-density--city-rank.htm

is only a little less than Denver's, and only Denver and Highlands Ranch are marginally denser among cities over 100,000 in Colorado.

What Swiss cities should Boulder attempt to emulate more?

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mhays

You're not making sense.

Whataboutism doesn't absolve Boulder. Also, Boulder has very high demand, on a different level than most places.

Boulder is indeed very desirable, in part because of the policies that people here don't like.

It's also a place where infill could be very walkable and transit-served.

How much more population do you think Boulder can absorb?

As for the $15,000 ($19,500 more accurately, not including financing costs etc.) added to housing units not affecting buyers...have you ever met a buyer? And obviously that would be the difference between penciling or not penciling for a lot of projects.

Given the going rate for housing in Boulder, $20k more isn't that much.

[mhays]

The $19,500 (plus financing costs etc.) would be for a studio. It could easily be double that for a multifamily unit.

You're not in construction and I'm guessing not home owner. The developer's go/no spreadsheet for a project is hugely influenced by amounts like that, and so is any potential equity partner's or lender's. As for buyers...someday you'll get it.

Boulder could easily absorb several thousand housing units between its greater downtown area and CU alone. Allowing six stories, and upzoning a few blocks of houses along arterials, would do wonders even in that small area.

Why would that reduce demand? Demand is driven by the mountains, CU, tech, etc.

[Cirrus]

There is no maximum population. The entire concept that there should be one is morally reprehensible, and intrinsically inequitable. By its very nature, that position says "I am more important than you."

You don't get to say that without being called out as bad for saying it. Especially when you claim to be a liberal bastion of equity.

Boulder could at least be honest about its intentions. The fact that Boulderites pat themselves on the back for equity and environmental stewardship, while actively trying to make their community less equitable and more polluting, is part of what grates people about Boulder. Lots of communities are selfish. Few combine Boulder's selfishness with its hypocrisy.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Boulder's population density according to

http://www.usa.com/rank/colorado-state--population-density--city-rank.htm

is only a little less than Denver's, and only Denver and Highlands Ranch are marginally denser among cities over 100,000 in Colorado.

What Swiss cities should Boulder attempt to emulate more?

Keep in mind that one-third of Denver's land area is DIA, so instead of using 150 square miles in the denominator, use 100 instead. That makes it easy to calculate. If Denver has 715,000 people, then its effective population density is 7,150 people per square mile.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Boulder's population density according to

http://www.usa.com/rank/colorado-state--population-density--city-rank.htm

is only a little less than Denver's, and only Denver and Highlands Ranch are marginally denser among cities over 100,000 in Colorado.

What Swiss cities should Boulder attempt to emulate more?

That's a hilarious comparison and disingenuous, Boulder-esque logic at it's finest. Boulder's population density is artificially high because it's greenbelt of exclusion is outside the city limits while Denver's has the opposite issue as the city limit include the entire airport property.

I'm sensing that you really don't want anything to change in Boulder- that you're fine with it being an exclusive community with a high wealth level and equally high levels of systemic exclusion of other socioeconomic strata. Which is just fine as long as you're willing to admit that what makes Boulder desirable in your eyes also makes it an incredibly inequitable place.

Boulder isn't a liberal progressive community, its more akin to a modern version of southern democrats focused on maintaining segregation. Fortunately, the political weight of Boulder continues to shrink similar to the Club 20's increasing irrelevance.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mhays

The $19,500 (plus financing costs etc.) would be for a studio. It could easily be double that for a multifamily unit.

You're not in construction and I'm guessing not home owner. The developer's go/no spreadsheet for a project is hugely influenced by amounts like that, and so is any potential equity partner's or lender's. As for buyers...someday you'll get it.

Boulder could easily absorb several thousand housing units between its greater downtown area and CU alone. Allowing six stories, and upzoning a few blocks of houses along arterials, would do wonders even in that small area.

Why would that reduce demand? Demand is driven by the mountains, CU, tech, etc.

The previously mentioned developer (in which the linkage fee came up) wouldn't have invested what they did if they hadn't run the numbers and figured out that they could profit even with the fee.

If Boulder becomes a lot less Boulder, then what?

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Keep in mind that one-third of Denver's land area is DIA, so instead of using 150 square miles in the denominator, use 100 instead. That makes it easy to calculate. If Denver has 715,000 people, then its effective population density is 7,150 people per square mile.

Fair enough. That still makes Boulder about the same density as Highlands Ranch and still more dense that any other city in the metro area over 100,000. Why single out Boulder for low density when it's not really that low?