DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Ndj]

Originally Posted by twalm

Induced Demand is a real thing and it not just about more people driving on expanded roads over other roads it is also about people choosing new expanded roads over public transportation.

Bingo. Induced demand is just a reduction in demand for other transportation methods. Why would demand for alternatives increase if we keep making it easier to drive? Why would we build an environment that facilitates alternative forms of transportation when everyone drives anyway because it's most convenient for their needs?

It's self-perpetuating. Most people can't even imagine a built environment that would fulfill our transportation needs without the frequent use of cars.

Originally Posted by COtoOC

Then look at Denver. When I first moved to Denver in 1994, the population was 50% lower. When you increase the population this fast, you obviously need more capacity on freeways. Same thing in places like LA (where I spent 10 years). Population keeps going up and up, you increase capacity.

Population increase doesn't mean that road capacity has to increase. You can build an environment where the majority of car trips are not necessary but the general population lacks the imagination or will to create such a world.

Originally Posted by COtoOC

And then if "induced demand" were true and more lanes means people decide to drive on the freeways more often, then what, removing lanes is the solution? Then people would stay home?

Well that's bit of an extreme solution but I don't hate it. If you make driving less convenient, that it will indeed increase demand for alternative forms of transportation and a built environment that facilitates them. Again it's self-perpetuating: Unsustainable development exists because highways allow it and highways continue to grow because we need to keep up with the expanding population of people who live in developments where the only viable method of transportation in driving.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Since I'm an elitist downtown dweller, everything south of Alameda and east of Colorado may as well be Limon.

Oof... Moving to a West Alameda address soon. Thank goodness I'm not quite in Limon.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Oof... Moving to a West Alameda address soon. Thank goodness I'm not quite in Limon.

You keep taking those pretty pictures, Ryan, and I'll give you a pass!

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by Ndj

Well that's bit of an extreme solution but I don't hate it. If you make driving less convenient, that it will indeed increase demand for alternative forms of transportation and a built environment that facilitates them. Again it's self-perpetuating: Unsustainable development exists because highways allow it and highways continue to grow because we need to keep up with the expanding population of people who live in developments where the only viable method of transportation in driving.

Remember the Interstate 85 bridge collapse in Atlanta (https://goo.gl/maps/hokB4MtgywNVbv4f7)? It was a major 10 lane arterial in and out of downtown that was taken out for a month and a half. Pandemonium didn't ensure and traffic was simply diverted with minimal disruption. They could have kept that section of highway demolished forever and been fine. Of course, Atlanta has a bunch of redundant highways, something we've not done as much here. However, this just goes to show that people adapt and a multi-million dollar piece of infrastructure isn't as necessary as everyone seems to think.

Where highways can be replaced with multi-modal boulevards, they should be. Where they can evacuate the ROW completely, we could ensure that the newly-freed parcels are high density, and provide housing closer to employment and entertainment centers.

It takes me 35 minutes to drive to Frederick from Downtown. 20 minutes of that is just getting on the highway. There was a day that Frederick was an hour or more away and nobody dreamed of working in Weld county and driving to downtown Denver for work. Highways used for freight and BRT are great. Highways for SOVs create sprawl.

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I don't think anyone has posted this yet

765 North Logan Street
Denver, CO 80203

Purchased in 2017, this 0.5 acres development opportunity overlooks Governor's Park and is located between Seventh and Eighth avenues.

Use * only * one * primary * and * only * one * secondary * material * on * the * facade *. Even if it’s all the white EFIS and no brick!

I think it would be even better if they removed the massing wart on the right side of the upper portion but I’d guess that’s due to maximizing the square footage with some inane setback rule.

I think this is actually otherwise a pretty good looking building.

[The Dirt]

Yeah, it's Fine(TM). Looks like all of the stuff that's been built in Cherry Creek recently. I'd prefer traditional design, but architects are too busy patting each other on the back every time someone designs a "whimsical" cube.

[Denver]

Looks like the redevelopment of the 7 news building (123 Speer) has started the permitting process.

The project is (2) 13-story apartment buildings with a total of 587 units and approx. 15,500 sq ft of ground floor retail, residential amenity and 525 parking spaces. The project site is approximately 100,000 SF.

[spr8364]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Yeah, it's Fine(TM). Looks like all of the stuff that's been built in Cherry Creek recently. I'd prefer traditional design, but architects are too busy patting each other on the back every time someone designs a "whimsical" cube.

Why don't you ask an Owner to build traditional? Good traditional can be done, but it is generally more expensive. Whenever a client starts talking about doing traditional, you remind them that it is expensive and they say never mind. Do something cheap. Then after you design a relatively nice building with some details to make it less boring, the Contractor will convince the Owner that the details are too expensive and don't add anything to the architecture of the building. So, the Owner tells them to take that off without telling the architect. And, then everyone wonders why the building is so boring.

[UrbanT]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

It's kind of wild how the parking hellscape between Lincoln and Governor's Park is very quickly getting infilled after decades of sitting empty.

Map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1YRlemTyfZVxFVR3bUkYvWK87hEBxY7If&usp=sharing

Too bad all of the Cheesman Park NIMBYs are up in arms because they think a 13 story building nowhere near their precious view plane will block views of the mountains from their 18 story buildings.

Love the map! There's also the Gables residental proposal for 8th and Sherman. I also believe the proposal for the Racine's site stops at Racine's and does not cover Wendy's.

[TakeFive]

The power of making astute observations can be simply amazing

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I've thought about this theory of "induced demand" and I don't think they take into account a population that is rising rapidly.

I grew up in KC and recall when they added lanes to I-35 and I-435 back in the '80s. They recently added another lane to 435. I have to travel there often (unfortunately) and the freeway traffic there is nothing compared to Denver. Rush hour is still just an hour, and not bad IMO. But here's the deal... their population hasn't risen that much since the '80s. It's a very steady, slow increase.

Then look at Denver. When I first moved to Denver in 1994, the population was 50% lower. When you increase the population this fast, you obviously need more capacity on freeways. Same thing in places like LA (where I spent 10 years). Population keeps going up and up, you increase capacity.

And then if "induced demand" were true and more lanes means people decide to drive on the freeways more often, then what, removing lanes is the solution? Then people would stay home?

Well said, btw.

If we were to ask everybody that has moved to Denver in the last X years why they came to Colorado, the Number One reason has to be:

Jobs - "I was offered a job; I was transferred; the access to jobs in my area of skill is high in Denver.

Other prominent reasons for moving could be various like:

• Family
• Friends or girlfriend-boyfriend
• I went to college in Colorado or I vacationed in Colorado and fell in love with the state
• I love skiing or I love the mountains
• When I thought about moving somewhere, I heard/read so many great things about Colorado

Has anybody EVER heard of anyone who was "induced" to move to Colorado b/c they heard about the T-REX lane expansion? I don't think so.

[TakeFive]

Very nicely scripted

Originally Posted by Ndj

Bingo. Induced demand is just a reduction in demand for other transportation methods. Why would demand for alternatives increase if we keep making it easier to drive? Why would we build an environment that facilitates alternative forms of transportation when everyone drives anyway because it's most convenient for their needs?

It's self-perpetuating. Most people can't even imagine a built environment that would fulfill our transportation needs without the frequent use of cars.

Population increase doesn't mean that road capacity has to increase. You can build an environment where the majority of car trips are not necessary but the general population lacks the imagination or will to create such a world.

In theory and on paper it's all very logical; it looks real good. But I like to ask: "what are they not considering; what do they intentionally not talk about?"

The world is a very dynamic place; all kinds of people with their own ideas. Uppermost in people's minds is a concept that could be described as "personal freedom" and while it is one critical and thorny issue I don't want to get bogged down by that so let's move on.

We're not dealing with a blank slate here

Like everything in life there are no do-overs; we can only move forward from where we are.

Believe it not I consider myself to be an amateur transit expert

Over time as I continued to read and learn, I finally, finally came to appreciate the concept of "First and Last Mile." One reason why it took me so long was because most learned transit experts never talk about it.

I am only aware of one well-researched analysis of "First and Last Mile." The study was led by Marlon Boarnet, a professor of public policy and chair of the department of urban planning and spatial analysis at the USC Price School of Public Policy. Boarnet is also an associate director of METRANS for the National Center for Sustainable Transportation (NCST), a research center headed by the University of California, Davis. METRANS is a member of the NCST consortium.

This is what Marlon Boarnet's researchers discovered: https://news.usc.edu/126791/how-transit-...-to-the-station-make-all-the-difference/

The researchers found that car commuters in low-income neighborhoods in San Diego have about 30 times greater job accessibility than those who take public transit.

The different ways riders leave and arrive at the stops closest to home and workplaces — what researchers term “first- and last-mile access” — can close this gap, even more effectively than more traditional and costly public transit measures like increasing transit frequency by adding buses and drivers.

Consider Denver meaning the whole metro banana

Ten percent of the jobs in metro Denver are in downtown. Let's be generous and add another 5% for the nearby downtown area or 15%.

That means 85% of the jobs are not downtown but somewhere else, like all over the place. How is this 85% of all employees supposed to get to and from work if transit doesn't go there - whether where they live or where they work?

Ya'll sexist, hope ya know

AFAIK, everybody here is a 'guy'. Women, at least the great majority of them, have very different attitudes about transit and transportation.

Many women are also moms. That also gives them a very different view of life from what the more typical guy view is.

The primary function of suburbs is to host families that care first and foremost about their children's education. This isn't an indictment on Denver schools; after all there's lots of families that live in Denver too. But when people move to Denver or when they move out of downtown the number one consideration after affordability are schools; and I know first hand they usually have already done their homework.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Ndj

Bingo. Induced demand is just a reduction in demand for other transportation methods. Why would demand for alternatives increase if we keep making it easier to drive? Why would we build an environment that facilitates alternative forms of transportation when everyone drives anyway because it's most convenient for their needs?

It's self-perpetuating. Most people can't even imagine a built environment that would fulfill our transportation needs without the frequent use of cars.



Population increase doesn't mean that road capacity has to increase. You can build an environment where the majority of car trips are not necessary but the general population lacks the imagination or will to create such a world.



Well that's bit of an extreme solution but I don't hate it. If you make driving less convenient, that it will indeed increase demand for alternative forms of transportation and a built environment that facilitates them. Again it's self-perpetuating: Unsustainable development exists because highways allow it and highways continue to grow because we need to keep up with the expanding population of people who live in developments where the only viable method of transportation in driving.

Yeah, I get that. Metro Denver has added all the light rail lines to move in the right direction. If I'm going downtown to a function or entertainment, I take the train every time. But going to work in Lone Tree... well, the A line is a failure and I would only use it if it were snowing. To get me out of my car, I need to save time and money. Taking the LR from Central Park to Lone Tree doesn't save either.

I prefer good public transportation, but it's somewhat of a "chicken and egg" situation. I have no problem with expanding freeways today, as long as we're moving toward a better public transit system. And creating the density that requires. On the bright side, I no longer have to travel to my office in Lone Tree (work from home permanently), so I'm part of the solution in that aspect. I just don't drive very far from home anymore.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

DenverInfill has some updates in the Union Station and Denargo Market areas:

1.Construction Begins at 3000 Huron
https://denverinfill.com/2021/10/construction-begins-at-3000-huron.html


2. Denargo Market Phase 4 Breaks Ground
https://denverinfill.com/2021/10/denargo-market-phase-4-breaks-ground.html

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

YI prefer good public transportation, but it's somewhat of a "chicken and egg" situation. I have no problem with expanding freeways today, as long as we're moving toward a better public transit system. And creating the density that requires. On the bright side, I no longer have to travel to my office in Lone Tree (work from home permanently), so I'm part of the solution in that aspect. I just don't drive very far from home anymore.

"Creating the density" is the rub. Lone Tree isn't dense enough to support robust transit, DTC isn't dense enough either (the north end is getting there). We're pretty damn far away from having the Denver equivalent of a Tyson's Corner.

Our bus system, which should be the basis getting people out of their cars, is anemic and RTD's existential crisis over what kind of transit system it should be isn't helping. Not to mention the "feel good approach" that RTD has taken towards poor behavior on their system that has manifested in RTD Security conducting a work slowdown to show how much we will miss those overpaid security guards if they aren't allowed to beat the shit out of people in bathroom stalls.

I do think the solution is for RTD to focus on the commuter corridors and go to some sort of block grant funding model to develop the intra-city bus lines, but I think that it would probably result in a semi-decent commuter system and a half-ass bus system given that Denver and the old suburbs would probably 'eff it up on the bus front.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by UrbanT

Love the map! There's also the Gables residental proposal for 8th and Sherman. I also believe the proposal for the Racine's site stops at Racine's and does not cover Wendy's.

Thanks! Updated. Do you have any info on the 8th and Sherman project?

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

"Creating the density" is the rub. Lone Tree isn't dense enough to support robust transit, DTC isn't dense enough either (the north end is getting there). We're pretty damn far away from having the Denver equivalent of a Tyson's Corner.

Until rail plays by the same rules as highways, it's going to be the worst option. For highways, we throw money at lane additions, bridges, and major re-grading all day long. For rail, we don't grade separate and then waste the next 2 years with the crossing software. Highways get swaths of dedicated ROW with smooth turn radii so that cars can continue to go 75 mph. Meanwhile, trains get tight ROW, so that they have to take turns at 20 mph and single track swaths of rail. Highways cut through (poor) residential neighborhoods to get the suburbanites to work. Trains go through industrial areas because homeowners don't want to hear any choo-choo noises.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Until rail plays by the same rules as highways, it's going to be the worst option. For highways, we throw money at lane additions, bridges, and major re-grading all day long. For rail, we don't grade separate and then waste the next 2 years with the crossing software. Highways get swaths of dedicated ROW with smooth turn radii so that cars can continue to go 75 mph. Meanwhile, trains get tight ROW, so that they have to take turns at 20 mph and single track swaths of rail. Highways cut through (poor) residential neighborhoods to get the suburbanites to work. Trains go through industrial areas because homeowners don't want to hear any choo-choo noises.

All of which has nothing to do with RTD being unable to offer comprehensive bus service. The basic minimum that they should be able to do and they can't seem to make it work given that they cannibalized the intra-city system in order to build out the choo-choo. Granted, it's a money trade-off and we as a country are still giving transit the short-end of the funding stick, but the incompetence of RTD in up-keeping the existing system is infuriating.

[The Dirt]

Yeah, I was talking about highway-vs-rail for inter-city travel. As for intra-city, yeah, that's a whole other problem. RTD should honestly just be gutted. Let Denver-Glendale run their own buses and make the suburbs figure out that shit on their own. Give rail and the FF lines to CDOT.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by twalm

...So to answer your final question: Stop building extra lanes and instead invest more in alternative greener transportation methods.

Personally, I like my car and ease of transportation the automobile offers Americans in general (and with it the general ease of access to opportunity for most though not all). That said, I completely agree with your sentiment on every level and I've made this comment before so I'll make it again:

1. Maintain roads at current capacities and improve pinch points so that a highway system is standardized generally throughout a metro area or travel corridor. Pinch points are what exacerbate traffic and generate significant emissions.

2. Get tech involved with traffic light timing/planning and fire all the transportation engineers working on traffic lights currently or remove them in favor of roundabouts wherever possible.

3. We need upzoning and more density to support better public transportation, specifically regional rail and center city bus. I think Denver is 20 years away from a reasonable center city density that would benefit public transportation ridership provided the pace of development continues at it's current rate.

4. Regarding funding, to accelerate public transportation investment, offerings and ridership, provide City-wide upzoning that simply allows for more people and more density across a larger area of the City. Focused development activity as a result of our planning initiatives has created the strongest nimby opposition to development in the history of this country. The planning worked. We focused development in specific areas and development happened there, overwhelmingly so. Spread that love across the City.

5. Start witholding transportation dollars from communities which oppose development. Hell, tie it to a metric of existing jobs + jobs created vs housing produced. If that ratio is out of whack, no transportation dollars for you!

6. I'm not personally in favor of these specific strategies per say, but I see them as a way to accomplish an end goal of reducing automobile dependence, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing public transportation viability. I side with TakeFive on these issues generally and have an unwavering faith in the American system of choice. IMO communities should decide for themselves how their municipalities should operate because I believe the market and us Americans will award/punish those places in the long term and it'll all figure itself out. Perhaps that is naïve and I'm hanging onto youthful optimism more than I should in my aging self, but nobody ever accomplished anything with pessimism! We're seeing it on the coasts now...after many decades of poor governing and municipal management abuse, people are fleeing in droves. At some point, this will begin to affect those areas just as it has affected the rust belt with it's failure to pursue diverse economies. These trends are measured in decades, not years.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Also, looks like Zeppelin just sold 1150 Bannock St to Urban Villages, where they plan to build 30 story towers.