DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Speaking of Development

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

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.

I see you don't keep up with things... which is fine except you jump to points that make no sense.

FWIW, the stadium district tax was paid off end of 2011. BTW, the tax only covered $300 million. Compare that to the $5 billion that Kroenke just spent for Inglewood's new stadium.

What have we here?
This depicts the Stadium District Master Plan


Source

The Bronco Stadium is owned by an entity different from the ownership of the Broncos football team. The intent with this masterplan is to create a revenue stream to maintain the stadium.

Originally Posted by 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)

It's been awhile since we've heard from Wood Partners. Their last Denver fling was to take a pass at the Sports Castle site but they passed on that one. They have built a number of projects around Denver and never held on to them very long (which is fine). This will be their first project that's higher than four stories.

Originally Posted by 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.)

If you use a Chrome Browser then search for "Poor man's BJ reader"; download the extension/app and enjoy all of the BJ sites.

[TakeFive]

Not bad for an Urbanist

Originally Posted by laniroj

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.

Arizona will now HAVE to force some agriculture out of business - that's not a bad thing.

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.

Sadly, your obsession with sprawl is once again misguided and incorrect.

When you run pipe underground (to a new development) that carries water there's NO WASTE. Btw, Phoenix only get 36% of its water from the Colorado River. Source

Arizona will lose nearly 20% of it's Colorado River allocation which was negotiated a long time ago as it won approval for the Central Arizona Project. Farmers will be the biggest loser with this change but they've been planning ahead for this day by converting to high efficiency, low water drip etc systems for crops. They will survive but their capacity will drop for sure.

[TakeFive]

Yeah, this is not really the place to debate climate change

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

Footnotes: our correspondent on megadroughts

Reading your comment it drips with liberal bias. Not that it isn't creditable but the topic is waaaaay to political and complex for this site.

Colorado does tickle my humor though.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...portation-pollution-reduction-funds.html

Colorado Transportation Commission members could be able to withhold money for regionally significant projects that don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions under proposed new standards that drastically could change how highway projects are considered and undertaken.

Who knows how this actually plays out but Colorado's environmentalists trying to carve out gains at the margin by picking winners and losers... well, I find it humorous.

Ironically, all these 'gains' at the margin are being obliterated and overrun by forest fire pollution - yes, including ozone pollution. Yet the efforts to deal with this amount to 'crickets'.

"Global" warming is a global issue. Interestingly, the cost for thermal coal has doubled since the 1st of the year due to high demand from Asian countries.

And the beat goes on...

----------------------
Very nicely stated.

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

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]

Funny how Boulder’s 3% of the MSA population (100k/3M) controls the other 97%.

There’s one solution to the water problem that’s rarely mentioned - reduce that 40 million depending on the Colorado. As the area is less and less capable of supporting that number, people will simply move away, as happened centuries ago.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Yeah, this is not really the place to debate climate change

Reading your comment it drips with liberal bias. Not that it isn't creditable but the topic is waaaaay to political and complex for this site.

“The Economist” is many things, but “liberal” in the America pejorative sense it is not.

Facts aren’t political, they simply are.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Speaking of Development

I see you don't keep up with things... which is fine except you jump to points that make no sense.

FWIW, the stadium district tax was paid off end of 2011. BTW, the tax only covered $300 million. Compare that to the $5 billion that Kroenke just spent for Inglewood's new stadium.

The Broncos are worth well over $1 billion (thanks in no small part to that $300 million and the sweet stadium revenue deal PDB Ltd. has), their next stadium can be paid for entirely by them.

That Denver has plans for the current stadium area doesn’t matter. The next owner of the Broncos will demand a new one to replace the creaking old junk pile that’s there (that’s always the language they use) or else the team will decamp to San Diego, or some other team-less city.

That worked like a charm in 1998.

The Bronco Stadium is owned by an entity different from the ownership of the Broncos football team. The intent with this masterplan is to create a revenue stream to maintain the stadium.

Doesn’t matter. The stadium meets the needs of the Broncos’ owner for revenue, or else it gets replaced on our dime.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Not bad for an Urbanist

Sadly, your obsession with sprawl is once again misguided and incorrect.

When you run pipe underground (to a new development) that carries water there's NO WASTE. Btw, Phoenix only get 36% of its water from the Colorado River. Source

That's a false premise. The average US household sees about a 8-10% loss of water due to leaky pipes, faucets, toilets, irrigation system etc. Similarly, water delivery systems do have a loss factor, it's an average of 16% in the US. Arizona has probably done a lot to try an reduce these system losses, but I'm sure there's probably a significant amount dripping right out into the dusty Arizona dirt.


On a side note, for Denver the lead replacement program probably has a two-fold benefit in that it replaces the oldest service connections that are likely a large source of leaks as well as reducing lead poisoning. Is this something that Arizona has looked at as well?

Arizona will lose nearly 20% of it's Colorado River allocation which was negotiated a long time ago as it won approval for the Central Arizona Project. Farmers will be the biggest loser with this change but they've been planning ahead for this day by converting to high efficiency, low water drip etc systems for crops. They will survive but their capacity will drop for sure.

Your confidence is admirable, though I'm wondering if you guys will end up folding like the Afghan Army if the reductions continue to grow.

[TakeFive]

Now that's funny

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Your confidence is admirable, though I'm wondering if you guys will end up folding like the Afghan Army if the reductions continue to grow.

Btw, what you said =/= what I said. Your points are well taken though (and I'm sure valid). It looks like Phoenix/metro has some lead pipe risk for homes built before 1930.

------------------------
Thanks for the Heads Up

Originally Posted by Denver

Another project broke ground last week. Demo has commenced on 200 Clayton (across the Street from the Cherry Cricket)

Here's a different rendering from Mile High CRE


Courtesy of Beck Architecture.


Speaking of Cherry Creek

5-story apartment project proposed in Cherry Creek
Aug 18, 2021 By James Rodriguez – Reporter, Denver Business Journal

Mill Creek Residential has proposed a five-story, 110-unit apartment project at the southwest corner of East 2nd Avenue and Cook Street, in Denver’s Cherry Creek neighborhood, according to a concept plan that was recently filed with the city.

The planned apartments would replace a pair of three- and four-story office buildings located at 165 and 155 N. Cook St., respectively. Documents filed with the city show Mill Creek is under contract to purchase both properties, which total about 0.86 acres. Neither sale appears to have closed yet, however.

The project, as currently proposed, would include two levels of below-grade parking and about 165 parking spaces.

[cocomms]

Originally Posted by laniroj

The sprawling exurb development that Boulder quite literally forces upon the entire metro area is the antithesis of environmentalism.

As a Boulder resident and former central Denver resident, I'm trying to get a more informed perspective on this anti-Boulder bias, including mojiferous's wonderful rant. I'm guilty of balancing a muddling mix of anti-growth and smart growth positions so my opinions on Boulder's policies might not be the most consistent.

As for defending Boulder, yeah I enjoy the anti-growth policies and large surrounding open spaces that protect Boulder proper from suburban sprawl. I appreciate the artificial caps on population by limited zoning and height limits. These limitations, in theory, preserve quieter neighborhoods and make it easier to protect the local natural resources and allow the city to set realistic strategies for mitigating its negative environmental impacts. If Boulder increased it's zoning density and building heights to the degree needed to encompass the majority of the exurb development it forces on the Front Range, even with the best smart growth principles, the accompanying increase in population would place even greater negative impacts on the immediate social and natural environments (negative relative to the majority opinion of the community). From a resident perspective, I even enjoy the obscene real estate prices, as it discourages population growth. As a renter, it sucks, but the quality of life is worth a forced reduction in personal consumption, which is also great for the environment.

At the same time, I lament Boulder's lack of diversity and smart urban design. Boulder would benefit from a better mix of single family housing and high density corridors beyond Pearl Street. Micro-housing options would likely be in extremely high demand throughout the city. And the hypocrisy is often in plain sight. The zoning codes actively place limitations on the number of non-related people living together to 3, tying the community's hands in optimizing the use of its existing residential resources. The car/pedestrian ratio is painfully high in our 'high density' corridors that are lined with an extensive multi-use trail network. Our community's consumption and ecological footprint are massive because not only are Boulder resident's wealthy on average, but the city is also responsible for all the neighboring communities' residents who commute to and consume within the city boundaries every day.

Boulder has plenty of hypocrisy and problems to address. No doubt about it. But I still don't clearly understand why Boulder's policies are to blame for the exurb sprawl across the Front Range. From an urban development/ environmentalism perspective, isn't every city/community responsible for ensuring that it's economic activity is equitable and in balance with nature within it's jurisdictional boundaries? Is Boulder responsible for creating enough housing infrastructure to fully meet the level of demand of people who want to live there AND at a level that guarantees 'affordability' for all? Should this freedom of locality and affordability always take legal and social priority over limited growth and natural conservancy? Aren't sprawl dominated communities responsible for implementing their own high-density zoning codes? Are sprawl communities responsible for creating jobs equal to their population levels?

I'm curious to hear from you all about what the cutting edge urban and sustainable development trends are in regards to Boulder's policy failures. Can a community exist in a non-growth orientation and be considered successful? Can real estate activity ever be limited to the re-use and redevelopment of obsolete properties within the jurisdictional boundaries, yet while maintaining existing limits on population and/or environmental impacts of the community as a whole? I'd love to live in a Boulder that is more affordable, more diverse and better protects the local and neighboring natural environments from human impact.

[mhays]

The absolute #1 priority for any environmentalist should start with limiting sprawl. And this has to start with reality, not fantasy: The region is growing, and the growth has to go somewhere. Therefore it's crucial that infill be allowed, and not very difficult.

In my region, this is all a given. Every urban county and town is required to both limit sprawl and accept growth. This is a reality-based alternative to Boulder's fantasy. We screw up in various ways that add too much cost, but the system largely works.

The second priority for any environmentalist should be limiting unnecessary resource use, including materials, fuel, and so on. Even electricity since most of it's not sustainable, and even using the sustainable kinds typically means someone else is using coal etc. instead. That means encouraging short commutes, ideally by non-car means. By pushing growth outside your greenbelt, you're doing the opposite.

[TakeFive]

I've read the Bible but I ain't very religious

Originally Posted by mhays

The absolute #1 priority for any environmentalist should start with limiting sprawl. And this has to start with reality, not fantasy: The region is growing, and the growth has to go somewhere. Therefore it's crucial that infill be allowed, and not very difficult.

I'm happy to thank Rush Limbaugh (RIP) for putting my critical thinking skills on steroids. I also assume I've been blessed with an uncanny amount of common sense.

So I decided to Google which was once my own conventional wisdom. "Why is sprawl bad" which brought up a good standard recitation of talking points.

Sprawl is bad because

1) it gobbles up agricultural land
Good Lord, do these robots understand we still pay farmers er farm land owners $billlions to NOT grow anything. There may be a shortage of water in places, but there's no shortage of farm land.
2) Higher taxes
Wait... what are you talking about. What kind of taxes? FYI urban taxes are easily the highest taxes going.
3) long distances between homes, stores, and work
Not necessarily. It depends. Most newer development utilize mixed-use. Even in older suburbs most people are no more than 8 maybe 10 blocks from a grocery store/retail. This is a Big Deal? Too funny. As we move to more work-from-home it's even less of an issue?
4) increased runoff into rivers and lakes
Please explain. How does a family living in the country create more "runoff" than the toxic trash from cities?
5) harmful effects on human health
Why do I suspect that the opposite is true with respect to sprawl versus high density living. Generally, people who live in suburbs or rural areas are happier than those who live in (big) cities. That sounds like a plus for health.

I could go on but won't.

I'm not a fan of Boulder but blaming sprawl on them is a little goofy. Boulder doesn't control how other nearby cities in the county develop. They choose more of a sprawl model because they also prefer lower density.

The Colorado front range is semi-arid. So sprawl holds down the tumbleweed population. I think we can survive with less tumbleweeds.

Rockies win again!!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Rockies win again!!

So? Only old men and fools think another Rocktober is in the works and, other than that remote possibility, there's no reason to watch a below mediocre team.

[mhays]

Sprawl apologist is using someone else's incomplete arguments to justify sprawl. Shocking. I'm going to bed.

[rockies]

Jesus... Every time I peak at this thread there's at least one person more than happy to display their incompetence. I'm choosing to believe the sprawl post is sarcasm Denver ppl crazy

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by cocomms

Boulder has plenty of hypocrisy and problems to address. No doubt about it. But I still don't clearly understand why Boulder's policies are to blame for the exurb sprawl across the Front Range. From an urban development/ environmentalism perspective, isn't every city/community responsible for ensuring that it's economic activity is equitable and in balance with nature within it's jurisdictional boundaries? Is Boulder responsible for creating enough housing infrastructure to fully meet the level of demand of people who want to live there AND at a level that guarantees 'affordability' for all? Should this freedom of locality and affordability always take legal and social priority over limited growth and natural conservancy? Aren't sprawl dominated communities responsible for implementing their own high-density zoning codes? Are sprawl communities responsible for creating jobs equal to their population levels?

Double post

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by cocomms

Boulder has plenty of hypocrisy and problems to address. No doubt about it. But I still don't clearly understand why Boulder's policies are to blame for the exurb sprawl across the Front Range. From an urban development/ environmentalism perspective, isn't every city/community responsible for ensuring that it's economic activity is equitable and in balance with nature within it's jurisdictional boundaries? Is Boulder responsible for creating enough housing infrastructure to fully meet the level of demand of people who want to live there AND at a level that guarantees 'affordability' for all? Should this freedom of locality and affordability always take legal and social priority over limited growth and natural conservancy? Aren't sprawl dominated communities responsible for implementing their own high-density zoning codes? Are sprawl communities responsible for creating jobs equal to their population levels?

You are overthinking this. Urban job centers have a responsibility to create an environment where their workforce can get to work in a responsible way (for ease of argument let’s say just about anything that is not a single occupancy vehicle is responsible).


Of the 60,000 commuters in Boulder something like 80% drive a car, by themselves, to work. That’s atrocious. By comparison around 30% of downtown Denver’s 145,000 workers commute by themselves in a car. Boulder puts more cars on the road than downtown Denver everyday…..again atrocious. If Boulder isn’t to blame for that than I don’t know who is. Boulder loves to antagonize and fight the oil and gas industry publicly, but at the end of the day is happy to drive policies that sustain the industry’s growth.

First thing Boulder could do is require all residents to have a job. That would reduce their population by around 75% as the trustafarians are forced to move out, opening incredible opportunities for people who have to work for a living. It would also reduce daytime pressure on your precious open space trail system as working folk can’t go trail running all day.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

You are overthinking this. Urban job centers have a responsibility to create an environment where their workforce can get to work in a responsible way (for ease of argument let’s say just about anything that is not a single occupancy vehicle is responsible).

Name one urban center that has met this responsibility. Denver certainly hasn’t.

Of the 60,000 commuters in Boulder something like 80% drive a car, by themselves, to work. That’s atrocious. By comparison around 30% of downtown Denver’s 145,000 workers commute by themselves in a car. Boulder puts more cars on the road than downtown Denver everyday…..again atrocious.

Where are your data from?

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mhays

Sprawl apologist is using someone else's incomplete arguments to justify sprawl. Shocking. I'm going to bed.

The only city over 100,000 in Colorado that has higher population density than Boulder is Denver.

If Boulder was as densely populated as Colorado Springs, it would have only 67,000 people. As dense as Pueblo? 54,000 people.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

The only city over 100,000 in Colorado that has higher population density than Boulder is Denver.

If Boulder was as densely populated as Colorado Springs, it would have only 67,000 people. As dense as Pueblo? 54,000 people.

Most other cities tend to have the majority of their open space in their city boundaries. Guess which one doesn’t? It’s not the one with a 50-plus square mile airport that lowers it’s population density, rather it had the opposite effect.

[seventwentyone]

AlbertSmith is becoming my favorite poster because of his “show me your data but I will never show you mine” schtick. It’s a live look in at NextDoor Mapleton.