DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[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?

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by 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.

I understand your point.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

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.

Thanks for being clear about your distaste for Boulder.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

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?

I didn't say that no projects pencils. But fewer certainly do, and they need higher price points to make things work...which they can do because the fees scare some competition away. Basically the fees get baked into housing prices, for both new and existing units, with scarcity as the mechanism that makes that work.

Also, the project apparently hasn't started. At this stage, they're making a bet that it's worth putting money on an attempt to build. They and their partners will continue to assess the financial picture. Projects don't get built all the time.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Thanks for being clear about your distaste for Boulder.

And thank you for being less than clear about your preference for Boulder as it is without needing to change anything.

[ams5280]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Why single out Boulder for low density when it's not really that low?

Because no other city that size has the same political influence.

Can’t afford to build a train to Boulder with projected low ridership and a cost that could hamstring regional transit for decades? The Governor will bully your agency publicly and the Legislature will withhold state funding.

The unbuilt LRT extension to Highlands Ranch hasn’t elicited the same response. But Highlands Ranch is also not a great comparison.

I would venture to say that a good number of Boulder’s permanent residents are living illegally. You think only 3 or fewer college students can afford a 5-bedroom ranch in Martin Acres going for $4,000 a month?

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

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?

'Boulder is as dense as sprawling suburbs!' You nailed the problem better than I could.

Boulder is singled out because it causes sprawl (highlands ranch is the result, not the cause) and because 60,000 people don't drive to work in Highlands Ranch.

Highlands Ranch also doesn't offer some illusion of being a sustainable-minded, forward-thinking city. I think I might go easier on Boulder if they came out and said 'we are exclusionary elitists that are deliberately driving climate change and ozone pollution along the front range'. At least that would be honest.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

And thank you for being less than clear about your preference for Boulder as it is without needing to change anything.

Boulder isn't static.