DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

The city's fencing strategy to restore areas seem to work. The troubled area in Union Station (by the Whole Foods) is now fenced in and they have a mobile command unit trailer stationed there. They also fenced a section of Skyline Park. I think when RTD light rail ridership and downtown workforce gets closer to normal, those areas also improve in terms of vacancies and foot traffic.

Then where did these folks go? Removing the truly massive camps around 22nd and Stout or Civic Center is good for the city's image perhaps, but anecdotally I see way more smaller tent clusters in neighborhoods these days (Cheesman, Baker, further north in Five Points) and friends in those neighborhoods are having disruptions/crime that they weren't dealing with in say 2018. I don't think the city has solved anything, though admittedly I'm not downtown nearly as much these days. The Union Station area is especially tragic as only a couple of years ago it was an accomplishment of urban design to be proud of. (Not that the city of Denver can fix such a deep, multicausal, national crisis on its own, but having city councilpersons who crawl into tents to protest their dispersal is probably not helping our relative performance in the matter.)

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Then where did these folks go?

They disperse into the buildings or form smaller groups which is actually worse. I know people are all up in arms about policing right now, but DPD will just 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 these people off the property and release them. I understand there is a larger problem at stake, but these people think they are getting away with everything they're doing, and they are.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by RyanD

They disperse into the buildings or form smaller groups which is actually worse. I know people are all up in arms about policing right now, but DPD will just 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 these people off the property and release them. I understand there is a larger problem at stake, but these people think they are getting away with everything they're doing, and they are.

Well that makes sense. I'm sorry for you're having to pivot and change your goal timeline. I get where you're coming from. I left Curtis Park, in part, for similar reasons. I'm in a less urban but much quieter part of town and frankly given the increasing sketchiness of parts of central Denver, my urbanite self is okay with that. Baker is pretty cool though!

[TakeFive]

The only difference between you and Nathan MacKinnon is that he makes $5 million a year.

Originally Posted by RyanD

I've lived in Union Station since 2019. It really isn't super safe at the moment. I've been threatened multiple times around my building, been followed down Chestnut, had homeless follow me inside my apartment building, dealing with 11 straight months of break-ins, hard drugs (mostly meth) being used in my hallways, stairwells, trashed areas inside and outside the building. We are moving next month and couldn't be more excited to get out of this neighborhood. We aren't super happy about moving but it's become such a background stress, it's the only right thing to do.

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/10/04/nathan-mackinnon-sells-union-station-penthouse/

Avalanche center Nathan MacKinnon might be at the top of his game, but he’s no longer living at the top of The Coloradan. In early September, the hockey star sold his penthouse unit on the 19th floor of the condominium building at 1750 Wewatta St. for $3.1 million, according to public records. That’s $100,000 less than he paid for it in 2019, the year the building next to Union Station was completed.

Consider that MacK also had paid to have the place professionally decorated and he also had to cover the all the closing costs.

People on Meth can be harmless
when they take off all their clothes and walk around.

People on Meth can be dangerous
while I haven't heard of it happening in Denver, there's been a number of people down here who have killed somebody by knifing them like 50 times b/c they thought they were killing the Devil (or some such nonsense). Likely they were criminally inclined to begin with but WTF.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Ryan's experience is anecdotal, but it's an example of how DPD/RTD Security have been soft striking because they feel 🞵🞵🞵🞵-hurt from the public backlash they have received over the last year. But, the RTD Board is still on the social justice bandwagon as is a certain City Council member so they probably are celebrating the open air drug markets and the downtrodden who feel emboldened enough to break and enter anywhere they feel fit.

Let's just say things got complicated. It's not like RTD or DPD "want to" go soft. Basically, the security guys are limited; they have no policing powers.

The Backlash over that incident became a 'cause celeb' for 'protecting' the homeless and a fight over the right to use 'public' space. Being homeless is more of a ruse for excusing criminal activity. They don't seem to have a problem finding the money for drugs?

It's like the City has few rights in protecting itself, its public places from "lawlessness." Dare I say: "Give me the good old days when men were men etc"

Side Topic

Originally Posted by RyanD

They disperse into the buildings or form smaller groups which is actually worse. I know people are all up in arms about policing right now, but DPD will just 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 these people off the property and release them. I understand there is a larger problem at stake, but these people think they are getting away with everything they're doing, and they are.

It has been soo frustrating but IMO "progressives" have significantly damaged the Democrat Party brand and the backlash is building.

[escodu05]

Excited to get this one developed. Groundbreaking expected Dec 1.

Smaller units but a lot of custom feel. We also need wanted no EFIS and used same architect as the 5 story apartment building on Pearl for context and a little more modern approach.

Originally Posted by Denver

I do not think this has been discussed.

New apartment at Buchtel Blvd & S Pennsylvania. 42 units. Targeting 2022 completion. Being developed by Confluent Development

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by escodu05

Excited to get this one developed. Groundbreaking expected Dec 1.

Smaller units but a lot of custom feel. We also need wanted no EFIS and used same architect as the 5 story apartment building on Pearl for context and a little more modern approach.

It's a great looking project! I'm curious how you got this funded.

[TakeFive]

https://www.nakeddenver.com/post/42-apartments-headed-to-buchtel-blvd-s-pennsylvania-in-platt-park

The project is a joint venture between the power duo Confluent Development and Narrate.

....the site was occupied by Wash Park Car Wash which appeared to be in serious need of repairs and updating. On 01/10/19 the site sold for $875,000. Then, after building plans were approved and the site was prepped for development, the site sold again on 08/27/21 for $1,260,000.

1190 S Pennsylvania Street


Google Street View - 2018


Current Google Street View

More RiNo development

3575 Chestnut Place




Renderings provided by Studio Completiva.

The triangle lot at the intersection of Chestnut Place and 36th Street in RiNo will soon be home to a 49-unit apartment building known as Chestnut Lofts. The architect leading the project is Denver-based Studio Completiva.

[Arapahoe]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Then where did these folks go? Removing the truly massive camps around 22nd and Stout or Civic Center is good for the city's image perhaps, but anecdotally I see way more smaller tent clusters in neighborhoods these days (Cheesman, Baker, further north in Five Points) and friends in those neighborhoods are having disruptions/crime that they weren't dealing with in say 2018. I don't think the city has solved anything, though admittedly I'm not downtown nearly as much these days. The Union Station area is especially tragic as only a couple of years ago it was an accomplishment of urban design to be proud of. (Not that the city of Denver can fix such a deep, multicausal, national crisis on its own, but having city councilpersons who crawl into tents to protest their dispersal is probably not helping our relative performance in the matter.)

I think the pendulum is starting to swing again. The extreme left, (think Candi DeBacca and that ilk nationally) that promoted leniency, anti-capitalism, anti-police and thus encouraged rampant property crime and general disdain for public institutions, are losing favor rapidly.

People are starting to see through the vapid virtue signaling of the lefties. Leftist surmise-- oh, I'm a good person because I tolerate filth and drug use in our public spaces, but do nothing otherwise to improve the plight of the addicted, mentally ill and unhoused. Just look at the deplorable conditions in lefty controlled cities.

And hey, I'm more libertarian than most and I don't care if you dye your hair blue and identify as a female cat. But, I see a growing trend of people questioning their ridiculous cancel culture against anyone who objects to accepting victimhood as a rational for all societal ills.

Lets hope we start getting some sensible candidates nominated in both parties!

[Ndj]

I'll say this about the Union Station neighborhood after having lived in it for a year: It's a beautiful neighborhood that is somehow a pretty unpleasant place to be. I fear for my partner every time she leaves the house alone. I actually cringe with embarrassment when guests from out of town see the state of things.

I'm all for empathizing with the homeless and the downtrodden but the status quo isn't good for anyone.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I feel like I've done a lot of walking around Boston and Manhattan and have not seen nearly as many homeless as I do in Denver. Is there something specific that other large cities do that we do not that causes homelessness to be less of an issue? There are also cities like San Francisco and Seattle that seem to be spend a lot more money yet have worse outcomes. My thought is that it is largely a federal issue. Also, how much of the total homeless population are like the people that smoke meth in the RTD bus terminal? I'm not sure that resolving the blight brought by the homeless crowd in Union Station involves the same strategy as addressing homelessness as a larger sociological phenomenon. The homeless issue downtown seems to be a fractional subset of the greater homeless population.

[mhays]

NYC is said to have a massive homeless population, but they're (a) mostly in shelters, (b) mostly located outside the core districts, and (c) subject to some pushback on behavior. I've walked loops around Manhattan and haven't seen many. I have a similar impression from walking around Boston.

Seattle is much like Denver. I don't trust stats, which are extremely unscientific, but we're said to be third worst behind LA and SF in terms of street homeless. I can believe this. There are some camps around Downtown, mostly at the south end, and also camps spread around other parts of town. It's nothing like some media outlets suggest but it's pretty bad. The recent election will be a turning point, as the mayor, the city attorney, and one council position went centrist (by our standards) with street homeless being the top issue. We've also been buying a number of hotels, which has reduced the volume of camping. Actually the surge in money on several fronts seems to be paying off.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I feel like I've done a lot of walking around Boston and Manhattan and have not seen nearly as many homeless as I do in Denver. Is there something specific that other large cities do that we do not that causes homelessness to be less of an issue? There are also cities like San Francisco and Seattle that seem to be spend a lot more money yet have worse outcomes. My thought is that it is largely a federal issue. Also, how much of the total homeless population are like the people that smoke meth in the RTD bus terminal? I'm not sure that resolving the blight brought by the homeless crowd in Union Station involves the same strategy as addressing homelessness as a larger sociological phenomenon. The homeless issue downtown seems to be a fractional subset of the greater homeless population.

I go to downtown San Francisco for work a couple times per year (when not in a pandemic) and it's horrible there. People just step over people passed out on the sidewalks, walk around the piss, and walk by tents along streets.

I thought SF, at one time, was actually giving homeless people money. I'm for helping people get back on their feet, but it seems that the more services a city provides, the more homeless the city attracts. I don't know what the answer is, but I'd hate to see it as bad here as in SF.

An Aussie friend of mine told me that in Sydney, the gov't just builds homeless camps outside the city and ships them there where they have some sort of services. At least it gets them off the streets.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

An Aussie friend of mine told me that in Sydney, the gov't just builds homeless camps outside the city and ships them there where they have some sort of services. At least it gets them off the streets.

Seriously, I've been thinking about this. Why can't Denver buy a farm in Adams county? We could provide shuttles for work, relocate all of the support services there and add security so that drug dealers can't target the homeless.

[Agent Orange]

Denver's homelessness crisis seems much more akin to West Coast cities than East Coast. I too have not seen anything remotely close to Denver/Seattle style homelessness in NY, Boston or DC in the last few years. I was in NY for a week recently and hardly saw visible homeless people, and when I did, there were no tents involved and they were doing their own thing, not seeming at all threatening/unstable the way (some of) our local homeless can at times.

I'm no expert, but I suspect the robust street drug scene and Denver's relative tolerance for drug exchange and use plays a big role. Like job markets, you might say homelessness + drug markets have agglomeration effects. I also wonder if Denver/Western US cities have higher availability of P2P meth (as opposed to ephedrine based meth) as well as fentanyl presence in street drugs, both of these substances leading to higher rates of addiction and paranoia than previous substitutes.

Originally Posted by COtoOC

An Aussie friend of mine told me that in Sydney, the gov't just builds homeless camps outside the city and ships them there where they have some sort of services. At least it gets them off the streets.

This sounds like a potential solution, but I suspect many of the homeless who are meth and/or heroin addicts would not like the isolation/feeling of being trapped in one location without easy escape. If they're in greater downtown, they have unlimited paths to move around and untold nooks and cranies they could hide out in. In a field by DIA they'd be forced to be together with other (often) violent and paranoid people with no escape, save maybe an occasional bus to the city (which they'd have to ride with the people they may be trying to flee). Also, panhandling prairie dogs is a lot less lucrative than asking for money from bewildered Nebraska tourists or the occasional office worker.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

People are starting to see through the vapid virtue signaling of the lefties. Leftist surmise-- oh, I'm a good person because I tolerate filth and drug use in our public spaces, but do nothing otherwise to improve the plight of the addicted, mentally ill and unhoused. Just look at the deplorable conditions in lefty controlled cities.

I'm really curious how things will go in 2023, for our city councillors and our mayoral election. (Though party affiliation doesn't really play into municipal politics here.) I think it's too soon to say, but I wonder if we'll have any actual good non-NIMBY, forward thinking candidates arise. In 2019, all of the Hancock challengers were far more skeptical of/hostile to the desperately needed zoning/land use reforms. Hancock was the only sane choice, even though he's a bit of a schmuck, but this is his last term. I fear Penfield Tate might do better next time. Also 2019 was when we lost our most YIMBY councilors (Susman, Brooks and arguably New) in a NIMBY wave. We'll see if there's a backlash, but I don't see much energy among more moderate, pro-development folks, whereas the DSA end of the spectrum are much more riled up. Guess we'll see where things stand in 18 months.

[TakeFive]

It sounds like a conspiracy but it's really an evil plot

I am impressed by this

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

I'm no expert, but I suspect the robust street drug scene and Denver's relative tolerance for drug exchange and use plays a big role. Like job markets, you might say homelessness + drug markets have agglomeration effects. I also wonder if Denver/Western US cities have higher availability of P2P meth (as opposed to ephedrine based meth) as well as fentanyl presence in street drugs, both of these substances leading to higher rates of addiction and paranoia than previous substitutes.

Last night after the Nuggets game I decided to do a deep dive. Your P2P piece links to the more comprehensive article in The Atlantic which I found and read.

Primarily from the perspective of a retired DEA guy it is a very, very, really good read. But yes, b/c it's in The Atlantic is is also very long. But I was able to 'cruise' through it and it will scare the bejesus out of you.

The plot is how the Cartel Crowd has honed the chemistry for all addictive drugs and Meth, in particular, virtually captures and destroys the human brain rendering addicts powerless.

More to say but not the time ATM.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Unless something else significant happens, I think the 2023 elections will probably look like NYC and Seattle where public safety perhaps played more of a role than one would've thought. I don't think the D'Baca and Calderon types will win against more moderate candidates.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...It's like the City has few rights in protecting itself, its public places from "lawlessness." Dare I say: "Give me the good old days when men were men etc"...

Good idea, I've long been a fan of legalizing the good old fashioned duel.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...Primarily from the perspective of a retired DEA guy it is a very, very, really good read. But yes, b/c it's in The Atlantic is is also very long. But I was able to 'cruise' through it and it will scare the bejesus out of you.

The plot is how the Cartel Crowd has honed the chemistry for all addictive drugs and Meth, in particular, virtually captures and destroys the human brain rendering addicts powerless...

I have a former DEA agent in my family. The stories they are actually able to tell me are mind blowing and downright frightening. The stuff that happens in movies is quite literally child's play compared to what happens in real life with cartels. There is a reason people are walking from South America to North America to seek refuge, it's not an easy trip! It's too bad our news media doesn't report on this aspect of American life more thoroughly. Local news does bits here and there on gentle homelessness, but the drug epidemic in America is accelerating and intensifying in so many different ways and at astonishing rates.

Why are homelessness and drug cartels relevant to development? A top cause of homelessness is housing affordability. Once in homelessness, more than 1 in 3 become addicted to something, if they weren't before. The only proven method for getting someone off the streets and sober over the long term is through access to stable housing and simultaneous addiction treatment. Likewise, one of the strongest forms of homelessness and drug addiction prevention is access to stable and affordable housing.

Why this matters in Denver? We're heading in EXACTLY the same direction using the same strategies with the same predictable results as every other City that has major housing cost and homelessness issues. It's the definition of insanity.

https://www.denvergov.org/files/assets/p...ability/eha_proposed_policy_approach.pdf

[The Dirt]

Denver is looking into an inclusionary zoning ordinance, with pretty much the same features of every other existing IZ ordinance in the country. They want to make new multi-family developments provide affordable housing, have others pay a linkage fee, and do virtually nothing about zoning and land use. Anyone doing a single-family scrape to build a larger single-family pay a tiny linkage fee, while 80+ AMI renters have to subsidize <80 AMI renters. Meanwhile, no homes are listed below 140 AMI.

This sort of policy has had exactly the opposite of the intended effect in every case. Less new homes get build overall and less affordable homes get built as a result. It's maddening, but at least we get to pat ourselves on the back because we did "something".