DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

The magnetizing affect of downtown Denver

Originally Posted by bobg

It's not as bad for retail/restaurants as you might think. We're still down about 40% in office worker activity. Restaurants and retail are only down about 10 to 20% from prepandemic. Mind you that's just activity based on cell phone data, not sure if the DDP has done any analysis on how that activity translates into dollars.

Source:
http://https://www.downtowndenver.com/wp-content/uploads/High-Freqency-Data-Update-08-18-21.pdf

That's a great post and source. Well done!!

https://kdvr.com/news/problem-solvers/re...-33-how-you-can-find-affordable-housing/

DENVER (KDVR) — A new report shows renter activity is up in Denver as rental applications start returning to pre-pandemic levels. According to analysts at Yardi Matrix and RENTcafe.com, the Denver market is considered exceedingly positive right now when it comes to renting either an apartment or a home.

Research from RENTcafe.com shows the surge here in Denver is being driven mainly by apartment dwellers moving into the city.

In fact, the number of renters moving to Denver from somewhere else increased by 47% in the first half of 2021, according to the data. The report shows most of these rental applications are coming from neighboring cities like Aurora, Colorado Springs and Lakewood.

Is downtown being walkable part of the allure?
I would think so, yes.

Here we are a decade later and a lot of things have changed. It's now Generation Z's turn to decide where they want to live. Urban living is a natural appeal for this group as much as it was for Millennials. The convenience including access to restaurants, bars etc as well as jobs would have a natural appeal to 'newcomers.'

Doing some random searches I found this industry report:

U.S. Cities Spending the Most on Residential Construction
APRIL 12, 2021 By Jonathan Jones

Unsurprisingly, most of that construction is taking place in areas where population growth is highest. Mountain West states like Utah, Colorado, Idaho, and Arizona and Southern destinations like Texas, South Carolina, and Florida are among the places where per capita investment in new residential construction is greatest. They are also among the nation’s fastest-growing states by population: each of those locations was in the top ten for population growth from 2019 to 2020, according to Census Bureau estimates.

The initial discussion is on SFH's driven by the Pandemic, both by state and by city and I assume cities includes the metro area. The analysis is of 'residential' construction which would include both homes and apartment, of course.

To identify the locations that are spending the most on construction, researchers at Construction Coverage analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Building Permits Survey and American Community Survey.

This article is an easy-to-scroll through look at places that are spending the most on new construction (as apposed to unit analysis).

[TakeFive]

The Ongoing Office Space Debate

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That 60% of pre-pandemic returnees doesn't include a number of larger corporations that are still holding off on a return to the office. Many were planning for a post labor day return that has been now postponed to late October at the earliest due to spread of the Delta variant.

My bet is a 70-80% return to the office due to remote and hybrid scheduling as the pandemic enters the end stages.

This one caught my eye. Different dynamics so how relevant to Denver or other cities, can't say, but when a long-time, old line company flies the coop it's an eye-opener.

State Street Is Ditching Its Manhattan Offices In Ominous Sign For NYC
August 16, 2021

A major financial institution is planning to vacate its offices in glossy Manhattan towers, dealing a blow to investors' confidence in real estate owners.

State Street Corp. plans to move 500 employees out of its Big Apple offices and into coworking spaces, existing offices in the suburbs or to telework, The Wall Street Journal reports. The Boston-based company's decision is the most high-profile example of a financial company leaving its New York City office space entirely due to changes brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.

"Like most other companies, we have seen our employees adapt quickly to working remotely," State Street spokesperson Edward Patterson said in a statement to Bisnow. "We intend to capture and adopt the new ways of working that have arisen during the Covid crisis so that we make the improvements and make adjustments as needed."

Their Manhattan leases are running out over the next couple of years so making a strategic decision was a natural thing to do.

In addition to the Manhattan coworking space, State Street employees will have the option to go to work in Clifton, New Jersey; Princeton, New Jersey; or Stamford, Connecticut, Patterson said.

Note: State Street's HQ is in Boston.

[Arapahoe]

Arena, meh. Instead build the 5280 Trail, the whole thing! Make it super easy for bikes and pedestrians to travel around the city core and watch a totally organic multi-neighborhood & business renaissance spring forth.

National Western, yeah..it gets a few tourists, but do city residents really spend time there? NO. Its a nostalgic wasteland of a bygone era most of the time.

5280 trail would provide for more vitality and fun for city residents and produce far more positive economic development than hosting a few more concerts.

[TakeFive]

The 5280 Trail should be awesome, especially if it turns out 'close' to the design concept

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

Arena, meh. Instead build the 5280 Trail, the whole thing! Make it super easy for bikes and pedestrians to travel around the city core and watch a totally organic multi-neighborhood & business renaissance spring forth.

National Western, yeah..it gets a few tourists, but do city residents really spend time there? NO. Its a nostalgic wasteland of a bygone era most of the time.

5280 trail would provide for more vitality and fun for city residents and produce far more positive economic development than hosting a few more concerts.

This is only natural and an appropriate or unsurprising position from many of downtown's ~25,000 residents, especially newcomers.

I wonder how many realize this is a False Choice. The 5280 Trail is not on the ballot. Wait... yes, there is money for the 5280 Trail. So you could vote for both. Feels more like an emotional-ideological vote AGAINST either Hancock or Urban-based prejudices. There are many things on the Full List of 80 Projects that don't benefit Downtown, so are you against all those too?

In any case I'm counting on a majority of Denver's 78 neighborhoods and now 715,522 residents to not care so much about the 5280 Trail.
But certainly everybody is entitled to their opinion and their vote.

[bobg]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That 60% of pre-pandemic returnees doesn't include a number of larger corporations that are still holding off on a return to the office. Many were planning for a post labor day return that has been now postponed to late October at the earliest due to spread of the Delta variant.

My bet is a 70-80% return to the office due to remote and hybrid scheduling as the pandemic enters the end stages.

Agreed. Anecdotally my office and a few friends are in that boat with companies that had return to office plans for the fall, but they got delayed as cases went the other way. My company was already doing hybrid and plans to stick with it with the same footprint when we return.

Not sure where it will end up but that 70 to 80 seems reasonable at the end of the pandemic. Then I'm assuming some price correction will occur to attract some firms who may want to be downtown but couldn't afford it previously. Possibly a few residential conversions like 1600 Glenarm to fill up the rest of the buildings, or maybe some renovations to attract more tenants from elsewhere in the metro

The convention market will be interesting to see when people are comfortable with that again. But it sounds like that'll be the last thing.

All in all not Armageddon but definitely a transitional time.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bobg

The convention market will be interesting to see when people are comfortable with that again. But it sounds like that'll be the last thing.

The Hotel sector has benefitted this year from a pent-up desire from leisure tourists. Conventions and conferences has picked ups some but there's a long way to go.

While Colorado’s tourism is on the rebound, 2021 won’t see full recovery
May 28, 2021 By Dennis Huspeni and Wayne Heilman - The Denver Gazette

Hotel and convention center officials said they’re seeing an increase in bookings and room reservations, mostly coming from the leisure sector. Large-group gatherings and conventions that businesses typically bring are still struggling with continuing COVID-19 restrictions, but are getting creative this year and momentum is building for 2022 and beyond bookings.

“There’s finally an uptick in business,” said Gregory Leonard, general manager of the Hyatt Regency Denver Convention Center. “We’ve had pockets here and there, and good success on weekends. The leisure traveler on weekends has been very strong. We’re recovering on the coattails of the leisure traveler.”

Sage Hospitality Group's CEO Walter Isenberg says they need more offices back to normal before corporate travel picks up noticeably.

I know that Scottsdale has great hope for a strong comeback in 2022; not sure how much "Delta" will impact that plan. But both cities do a huge tourism and conference business.

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The 5280 Trail should be awesome, especially if it turns out 'close' to the design concept

This is only natural and an appropriate or unsurprising position from many of downtown's ~25,000 residents, especially newcomers.

I wonder how many realize this is a False Choice. The 5280 Trail is not on the ballot. Wait... yes, there is money for the 5280 Trail. So you could vote for both. Feels more like an emotional-ideological vote AGAINST either Hancock or Urban-based prejudices. There are many things on the Full List of 80 Projects that don't benefit Downtown, so are you against all those too?

In any case I'm counting on a majority of Denver's 78 neighborhoods and now 715,522 residents to not care so much about the 5280 Trail.
But certainly everybody is entitled to their opinion and their vote.

Yeah, I get its not on the ballot. I see it as a blown opportunity for Hancock. He is looking to establish a legacy, and he picked a stupid arena. Hancock Arena, yay. The 5280 trail would have been a far superior idea for the post-pandemic stimulus measure. However, I might just vote for the arena to spite Candi Cdbaca. AND AGAIN demonstrate her total irrelevance, and hopeful defeat in the next term.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The 5280 Trail should be awesome, especially if it turns out 'close' to the design concept

This is only natural and an appropriate or unsurprising position from many of downtown's ~25,000 residents, especially newcomers.

I wonder how many realize this is a False Choice. The 5280 Trail is not on the ballot. Wait... yes, there is money for the 5280 Trail. So you could vote for both. Feels more like an emotional-ideological vote AGAINST either Hancock or Urban-based prejudices. There are many things on the Full List of 80 Projects that don't benefit Downtown, so are you against all those too?

In any case I'm counting on a majority of Denver's 78 neighborhoods and now 715,522 residents to not care so much about the 5280 Trail.
But certainly everybody is entitled to their opinion and their vote.

You don't think many people in Denver care about downtown Denver??

[TakeFive]

That's a very odd question so let me digress to something that is very, very important

Originally Posted by gopokes21

You don't think many people in Denver care about downtown Denver??

One of the top economic drivers for Denver as well as the state is tourism. Some places categorize tourism as export. You're exporting your appeal and collecting $'s from people who come visit, spend a lot of money, use your infrastructure short-term and then go home.

According to Visit Denver:

Tourism is one of the largest industries in the State of Colorado. Visitors stimulate the local economy and benefit hotels, meeting facilities, attractions, restaurants, cultural institutions, tour companies, transportation providers, local farmers and countless other businesses.

• Visitors to Colorado spent $24.2 billion in 2019.
• The state welcomed 86.9 million visitors (39.0 million overnight) in 2019.
• The tourism industry supports more than 180,000 jobs in Colorado (2019).
• Tourism saves every Colorado household $707 annually in taxes (this is the amount of tax dollars residents would have to pay if not for the nearly $1.5 billion in state and local taxes paid annually by visitors).

Source: Dean Runyan Associates, Colorado Travel Impacts 2000-2019; Longwoods International, Travel Year 2019

Whether it's the current bond proposal, the $937 million Elevate Denver Bonds passed in 2017 or the Better Denver Bonds passed in 2007, they all employ similar strategies and have common themes.

First priority is to spread the love around so that voters throughout the city have a reason to benefit from and vote in favor of the proposal.

Typically, the biggest $ expenditures will go to Cultural facilities (like an arena). These are places that certainly the city and most Denverites can take pride in and are welcome to and do enjoy visiting. They are also a tourism attraction as visitors from outside the city come into the city and spend money. They also support Denver's Convention Center appeal as convention goers want something interesting to visit in their spare time or for days they stay in Denver beyond the convention.

Bond proposals will vary some ofc. The 2017 Elevate Denver Bonds were notable for a couple of things. There was a Schnitt-load of money for deferred road maintenance - always a crowd pleaser. There was also more of a focus on the central city beyond the typical, especially relative to transportation which covered a number of things to include sidewalks, bike lanes, connecting bridges etc.

In an attempt to answer your question I would suggest that most residents throughout the city - as is human nature - are primarily concerned with their children and their neighborhood schools. Secondarily, people tend to be interested in their own neighborhood amenities like libraries and parks including facilities like pools and exercise facilities. And don't forget they care very much whether their neighborhood streets have potholes and are being maintained properly.

Many like the city center for it's cultural facilities and especially Coors Field and if you haven't taken in Rockies game you really should take advantage of this wonderful facility and experience - plus the Rockies have been playing good ball since the All-Star game.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

No it doesn't. This is the most patently false self-sanctimony I've read in a long time... it almost sounds like Texas Longhorn fan drivel.

RTD needs Boulder's money to serve Boulder. If you want to leave, don't forget to take your whole county with you, and we'll be just fine.

I've been arguing for years that we need to de-regionalize RTD and provide more options at the local level. That starts with Boulder leaving. Good for everyone involved.

Douglas County would be the big loser in that, because then why should Denver keep subsidizing Castle Rock's $100/person paratransit rides?

Because DougCo is politically more tolerable than Boulder.

Boulder County can also be removed from the stadium district, since we all know that as soon as the Broncos ownership is decided, the team will attempt to extort a new stadium from taxpayers, given that the Bowlen Bowl is now 20 and obsolete by NFL owner standards.

The usual baloney economic arguments will be deployed, and talk of the “San Diego Broncos” will surface, just like in 1998. The NFL is very careful to keep a viable city always available to use as a threat to recalcitrant taxpayers that they’ll lose their NFL team.

If a billionaire owner wants a stadium, they can pay for it themselves 100%. Period.

[Sam Hill]

That was random.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

That was random.

Colors Field was mentioned and the Bowlen Tax was sold as an “extension” of the Coors Field tax. It was actually a new tax, and that’s why there was a vote.

IIRC, part of DougCo decided to exclude itself from the MFSD. There’s precedent for Boulder County leaving. Works for me.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

Its a nostalgic wasteland of a bygone era most of the time.

Most of what Denverites are pretending to care about preserving right now lack the "nostalgic" part of that and as someone who despite all of my horror at what Denver is becoming - so that I'll likely never touch real estate there again in my lifetime - the stockshow and its accoutrements is ACTUALLY historic, ACTUALLY vital to Denver's history, ACTUALLY unique and ACTUALLY worth preserving and improving.

I haven't really seen you advocating for brutalist crap and other mid century nonsense being preserved like some others on here and so the above isn't really directed at you, but in the context of a lot of what I've been reading lately (in between Boulder's newest ambassador trying to justify all their nincompoopery), I found the sentiment ironic.

[AlSmithee]

Footnotes: our correspondent on megadroughts

The American south-west is drying up. Aryn Braun, our Mountain West correspondent, explained how a century of bad policy exacerbated the effects of climate change, with severe consequences.

When Aryn started reporting on water in the West, her first port of call was “Cadillac Desert” by Marc Reisner, an American environmentalist. Mr Reisner painstakingly recounts the history of the over-allocated river systems and brings to life the often irresponsible characters that built the region’s water infrastructure. “Science Be Dammed” by John Fleck, director of water resources at the University of New Mexico and Eric Kuhn, the former general manager of the Colorado River District, analyses the Bureau of Reclamation’s dubious track record with data.

The Colorado River supplies over 40m Americans across seven states with water and hydropower. This week its first-ever water shortage was declared. A series of white papers explains the impact of climate change and why residents should seriously consider the worst-case scenarios. America’s national drought monitor is helpful for tracking drought conditions across the country, with interactive maps that compare current conditions to historical averages.

One of drought’s more dramatic consequences is increasingly damaging wildfires. Kimiko Barrett’s history of fire suppression for Headwaters Economics, a think-tank in Montana, is great for understanding America’s evolving relationship with these blazes. “Fireline”, a podcast from Montana Public Radio, offers a wide-ranging look at fire: why humans need it, how they try to tame it and how to live alongside it.

The American West has always been inhospitable. But it needn’t become uninhabitable. Follow Aryn on Twitter to learn more about the urgent policy changes needed in the region.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Looks like another 16-story multifamily is planned near the 38th and Blake Commuter Rail station. This one is at 3600 Wynkoop.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...rs-3600-wynkoop-multifamily-project.html
(Paywall)

[mhays]

407 units, 312 parking spaces. I like the mass and the ratio.

(PS, I subscribe to my local DBJ affiliate, and for a little extra you can get all their other papers too.)

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

...The American West has always been inhospitable. But it needn’t become uninhabitable...

Since this is a development forum, I'll try to tie your comment to development so that you're not banished.

The west is very much uninhabitable without human intervention. Right now, that intervention revolves around three primary strategies for survival: agriculture, urban growth, and water management.

Being development and all, urban growth is what I'll focus on. The sprawling exurb development that Boulder quite literally forces upon the entire metro area is the antithesis of environmentalism. Specific to water, artificially forced sprawl has the effect of using incredible amounts of water that otherwise would never have been needed. I'm sure you can agree that is terrible though I suspect you'll say it's not Boulder fault that sprawl is happening. While you'd be partially correct, sprawl is happening for many different reasons, Boulder has a pronounced effect on it in NoCo. The entire west is generally guilty of this sprawl and it exists because of places like Boulder and because this type of growth is cheap, easy, and mindless (so long as cheap water is available). This type of sprawl growth is also pushed along and exacerbated because of the shortcomings of current urban zoning (thus why we need much more land zoned for higher density residential in all places to try and bring DOWN the cost of land in urban areas).

The agriculture problem could be fixed. California could build giant desalination plants run on nuclear, solar, or wind energy and pipe the water to the inland valleys to irrigate their 1,800 gallons of water per pound almond trees. They choose not to because it costs a whole lotta money. Arizona will now HAVE to force some agriculture out of business - that's not a bad thing. We shouldn't grow alfalfa in the desert using a critical resource like water. Change is hard but necessary. Heck, I'd even encourage Congress to "buy-out" farmers across the west early. It's a dying industry anyway and many (perhaps most) of these old timers sell their water rights to cities anyway, so why don't we save some water and do it early for them. If we can still subsidize corn farmers for ethanol production, we can spare some billions for alfalfa holdouts in southwest Arizona.

We don't need to grow corn or melon in eastern Colorado, we want to though. If that's the case, build a pipeline from the Missouri River to the Front Range - we can prevent flooding in the midwest and irrigate all of the west and not have low flow toilets. It's all a matter of money and will, but because water is so cheap, it will never make sense economically upfront and as such, politicians are unwilling to tackle it.

Think about this, $35 billion for water infrastructure in the current bill. That could quite literally solve all our problems in the west. Instead, we'll spend half of it in deeply blue, mis-managed cities to replace lead pipes that are quite literally poisoning people (which is why Denver Water gives it's customer water filters, because it's pipes are doing the same). While that's a good, life-saving use of money, it's never good to reward chronically bad behavior and mismanagement.

You decry water management such as the Gross Reservoir expansion, but it's the only thing saving the west right now. The entire point of a water system is to average out the whole and have flexibility to transfer - that old saying the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is especially true in water management.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Since this is a development forum, I'll try to tie your comment to development so that you're not banished.

The west is very much uninhabitable without human intervention. Right now, that intervention revolves around three primary strategies for survival: agriculture, urban growth, and water management.

Being development and all, urban growth is what I'll focus on. The sprawling exurb development that Boulder quite literally forces upon the entire metro area is the antithesis of environmentalism. Specific to water, artificially forced sprawl has the effect of using incredible amounts of water that otherwise would never have been needed. I'm sure you can agree that is terrible though I suspect you'll say it's not Boulder fault that sprawl is happening. While you'd be partially correct, sprawl is happening for many different reasons, Boulder has a pronounced effect on it in NoCo. The entire west is generally guilty of this sprawl and it exists because of places like Boulder and because this type of growth is cheap, easy, and mindless (so long as cheap water is available). This type of sprawl growth is also pushed along and exacerbated because of the shortcomings of current urban zoning (thus why we need much more land zoned for higher density residential in all places to try and bring DOWN the cost of land in urban areas).

The agriculture problem could be fixed. California could build giant desalination plants run on nuclear, solar, or wind energy and pipe the water to the inland valleys to irrigate their 1,800 gallons of water per pound almond trees. They choose not to because it costs a whole lotta money. Arizona will now HAVE to force some agriculture out of business - that's not a bad thing. We shouldn't grow alfalfa in the desert using a critical resource like water. Change is hard but necessary. Heck, I'd even encourage Congress to "buy-out" farmers across the west early. It's a dying industry anyway and many (perhaps most) of these old timers sell their water rights to cities anyway, so why don't we save some water and do it early for them. If we can still subsidize corn farmers for ethanol production, we can spare some billions for alfalfa holdouts in southwest Arizona.

We don't need to grow corn or melon in eastern Colorado, we want to though. If that's the case, build a pipeline from the Missouri River to the Front Range - we can prevent flooding in the midwest and irrigate all of the west and not have low flow toilets. It's all a matter of money and will, but because water is so cheap, it will never make sense economically upfront and as such, politicians are unwilling to tackle it.

Think about this, $35 billion for water infrastructure in the current bill. That could quite literally solve all our problems in the west. Instead, we'll spend half of it in deeply blue, mis-managed cities to replace lead pipes that are quite literally poisoning people (which is why Denver Water gives it's customer water filters, because it's pipes are doing the same). While that's a good, life-saving use of money, it's never good to reward chronically bad behavior and mismanagement.

You decry water management such as the Gross Reservoir expansion, but it's the only thing saving the west right now. The entire point of a water system is to average out the whole and have flexibility to transfer - that old saying the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is especially true in water management.

The limits water puts on development of the entire Colorado Basin (which includes Denver) cannot be ignored or banished, and it's becoming uninhabitable precisely because of development. We've far exceeded the carrying capacity of the region - 40 million people simply cannot rely on the Colorado.

Colossal infrastructure projects are part of what got us into this mess. Hoover and Glen Canyon gave us the appearance of sufficient water, but as we see today, and as we see into the future, that's an illusion.

If Boulder is responsible for some amount of sprawl, then Denver is responsible for much more sprawl. Denver relies on unsustainable Western Slope water - and the expansion of Gross is a futile effort to capture water that isn't coming.

The ancestral Puebloans had the same problem, and that we're centuries later hasn't really changed anything.

[bunt_q]

Cool, man. This is a development forum. We are not super interested in the same anti-growth Dick Lamm-esque (hate to stomp on the recently deceased, but good riddance to that man, I say) environmentalist tropes that we’ve been hearing off and on in Colorado since the 70s. This is not your audience. We like, you know, buildings and cities and stuff. Even in the arid west. Please feel free to show yourself to the door at any time.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

IIRC, part of DougCo decided to exclude itself from the MFSD. There’s precedent for Boulder County leaving. Works for me.

This is the attitude that causes the rest of Colorado to despise Boulder, wish ill upon its residents, and more and more plan to just exclude it from any future plans. And the comparison to Douglas County is fitting - despite the lefty leanings Boulder is similarly full of selfish people who believe that their own interests are more important than anything else and would rather see the world burn than change their ways. They don't care that their actions have increased traffic, or driven up housing prices, or made it impossible for most people to afford to live in Boulder. They will talk about contributing to charity and helping out others but begin to balk if those actions require them giving up their views and huge piles of home equity.

At least people in Douglas County are transparent in being motivated by contrarian reactionary revanchism.

Boulderites on the other hand are comically hypocritical and (just as we've seen here) will desperately try to redirect and reflect valid criticism of their anti-growth policies. Inevitably they end up citing how limiting growth is good for the environment and how it keeps Boulder small and "special".

But the ugly truth is that limiting outward growth AND densification has done nothing to improve the environment and is arguably much more damaging - the people that can't move to Boulder because of growth limits are now living in surrounding communities - meaning that they are driving farther and are still building houses on pristine environments. Acknowledging these facts would throw one of the primary motivations of the growth limits into question, so no one from Boulder will ever do that. Instead they inevitably try to deflect the problem onto everyone else - "Denver also has a lot of in-bound commuters", "other cities can densify if they chose to", "Why is Denver's population density so low", "If only people stopped moving to Colorado" etc. etc. But the truth is still that limiting growth in Boulder is not saving the environment anywhere except for the buffer zone. Limiting growth does not stop people from moving here and they will just build more and more houses farther and farther out into the prairies and into the foothills and the environment will just be more and more damaged. Sprawl accompanied by giant lawns and green strips and non-native plants that require more water too.

And it's also true that Boulder is like a small town - a small sundown town. But instead of limiting people by their skin color, residents are limited by their economic status (which because of structural racism has a lot of the same effect). But mentioning the negative impact that construction limits have had on inequality and affordability is taboo, because it exposes ugly truths about how much people contribute to structural issues that they nominally oppose, and in this case deflection doesn't work because calling out another city for growth-related inequality problems admits that it is truly a problem. So the tactic here has been to just ignore everything or start crying "how dare you call us racist!?". But there are never arguments made against the connection between housing and structural racism, just straight denial that such a connection exists (because once again admitting that there is a connection admits that you might be involved)

So there are a few ways to change this - one would be a massive change in society or environment that physically prevents people from moving to Colorado and allows limits on growth to work. Another would be to densify our current cities and make great transit connections, allowing more people to live close to their workplaces, commute without cars, and offering housing to more people. Unfortunately this requires construction close to city centers and at scales that Americans aren't used to.