DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

This article written in 'Denverite Style' is none-the-less well done

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

https://denverite.com/2022/08/19/denver-speed-bumps-bikeway/

We’re getting speed bumps to save the bikers! ������
Bike lanes recently installed on 23rd and 26th. But now they need speed bumps on 25th? If anyone needs protection, it’s the pedestrians from the bicyclists. That’s no joke.

So how many bicyclists versus pedestrians have been hit in recent years? Yet how much money have been poured into bike infrastructure while the pedestrian crossings and walks have been consistently neglected? Man the political power these cyclists have here is nuts.

I like that they solicited feedback from DOTI.

Last December, City Council also voted to lower speed limits on neighborhood streets to 20 miles per hour. Still, as DOTI lead transportation engineer Emily Gloeckner puts it, this won’t work if people don’t obey the rules. “In a perfect world, obviously, we’d want everyone to be courteous to each other and behave, but we know that’s not necessarily the world that we live in,” Gloeckner said.

Exactly! For those who complain about 'speeders' in their neighborhood it's from those who drive more like 50 mph and not those who drive 30 mph. Lowering the speed limit to 20 mph was the city's 'Employment Act' for those who get to make the new signs and replace the old ones.

I'm very aware of speed and 15 mph for school zones makes good sense. In this case it's a more vulnerable population and area that gets chaotic a couple of times a day.

With respect to speed bumps

She said there’s also a lot of study that shows drivers tend to speed up in between bumps and cushions, so there’s a worry the city might spend a ton of money on infrastructure that won’t really make a difference.

Yes, that happens; I do that. But consider that I will slow down to about 10 mph to go over the speed bump before accelerating to maybe 30 mph before having to slow down again to 10 mph for another speed bump So IMO these are worth the investment. For 'faster' drivers they may slow to 20 mph before speeding back up to 40 mph before having to slow down again - so it still has a positive impact.

What I can't speak to is how this will impede snow removal and damage the equipment causing costly repairs etc.

With respect to bicyclists and Bike lanes

bulldurhamer - Your point is well taken. There's a certain percentage of bicyclists, the 'athletic' type that claim entitlement as in "Get out of my way".

The Vision Zero Crowd

There is nothing wrong with being aspirational

The city has committed to curbing deaths on roadways for years, but they haven’t exactly been successful in that effort. 2021 represented a record-high for traffic fatalities in 20 years, and there’s no indication things have slowed this year.

The problem is this group likes to play "Let's Pretend" that the reason for fatal crashes is either the vehicle and/or the street when 95% of the time it's the driver's fault. In fact this is very easy to Google and there's lots of data on the topic.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The problem is this group likes to play "Let's Pretend" that the reason for fatal crashes is either the vehicle and/or the street when 95% of the time it's the driver's fault. In fact this is very easy to Google and there's lots of data on the topic.

Or idiot pedestrians. The data almost always shows that as the driver's fault. I *almost* hit somebody 2 or 3 times a week. I don't, because I am paying attention and evade. And if I did, it would be "my fault." But the reality - if you're trying to get to zero - isn't that easy. It's like getting homelessness to zero.

[DenvertoLA]

So remember when Block 162 was going to be a hotel / office combo... Do they still have plans to build that hotel, or is that dead in the water?

[Denver]

Renderings of the Greyhound station redevelopment. I am hopeful on this one.



https://golubandcompany.com/our-portfolio/

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

haha. I'm still struggling to accept large portions of ballpark as RiNo!

Would you suppose that Putin found inspiration in RiNo appropriating about half of the Ball Park neighborhood.
-----------------------------

When the driver is NOT at fault

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Or idiot pedestrians. The data almost always shows that as the driver's fault. I *almost* hit somebody 2 or 3 times a week. I don't, because I am paying attention and evade. And if I did, it would be "my fault." But the reality - if you're trying to get to zero - isn't that easy. It's like getting homelessness to zero.

Totally agree that with the Vision Zero crowd, they want to make it the driver's fault and never the 'innocent' pedestrian. It's extremely hazardous when pedestrians (or in some cases bike riders) pay no attention to traffic and WEAR DARK CLOTHING. This is especially hard to see at night but really any time of day dark clothing is harder to see.

The irony is that last night while driving I noticed how many of the homeless who use bikes generally ride defensively, knowing the road is dangerous. Oddly enough I was impressed.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

So again, all this really is is just another targeted revenue stream that will only impact homeowners.

No - this is a well supported, data-driven approach driven by behavioral economics. You make people pay more for trash, they'll produce less of it. You make composting free, they'll start using more of it. You make trash more expensive and recycling more frequent, people will recycle more.

[TakeFive]

Largely Agree

Originally Posted by laniroj

^Yep, exactly. This is what we call a static housing market. It's the single most dangerous thing for housing in america and nearly every large city is quickly approaching it. In many ways, Denver is already there, but not full on static like the majority of the east coast cities and california.

This so much reminds me of late 1970's or early 1980's and I'm afraid that the Fed will have to raise rates higher for longer than what they were hoping to kick the inflation devil. That said, commercial construction and we can include multifamily should do fine thanks to institutional funding availability.

Couple of things: One is Team Biden is inputting big chunks of money into the economy and second thing is I sense a 2nd wave of inflation working it's way through the system.

I won't complain about money coming from the Inflation Reduction Act (except for the name which was dumb). While nothing is perfect, thanks to Joe Manchin and my own Senator Sinema it's close enough. There's certainly no shortfall of money going for defense and the CHIPS Act was also spot on. So while some parts of the economy will be soft other parts are booming (or will be).

[TakeFive]

Nice Find

Originally Posted by Denver

Renderings of the Greyhound station redevelopment. I am hopeful on this one.



https://golubandcompany.com/our-portfolio/

Sure like the concept rendering.

[CONative]

Originally Posted by laniroj

This is an excellent question and one the City has spent a lot of time thinking about in the wake of the affordable ownership debacle that occurred from their prior inclusionary housing efforts...mainly out in Green Valley Ranch. That's exactly what the folks in version 1.0 did, doubled their equity or much more. I believe the new program is that their home values increase from the initial purchase price at CPI (or some equivalent) each year so that the folks build equity and the units remain affordable, but folks don't get to take advantage of the system as they did before where they get hundreds of thousands of free equity.

If you're wondering how these units get built well that's easy - the city, state, and other philanthropic causes write huge checks to cover the gap between the cost to build the housing and the proceeds they can generate from a sale to an income qualified individual. The mountain communities are pros at it, the City of Denver is trying to do more but it will only ever be at the tiny margins of production and it comes at a yuuuuge per home price tag.

Background from the Denver Post: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/09/05/denver-affordable-housing-mess/

RE: Affordable housing equity...

If I remember correctly, most Denver for-sale affordable programs do allow equity to build -- but they limit your home equity to no more than 3% each year. If the market increases 10% in a given year, you only get 3%. Keeps the cost of the affordable housing down and gives equity to the homeowner.

[CONative]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

If you search redfin or zillow for homes in Denver, and sort by price, the very cheapest piece of real estate you will find in the entire city is a 330 square-foot condo in a new-build on 6th and Inca. $150K. They’re income restricted. I don’t qualify for one but a close friend of mine does and he recently bought one. I worry a bit for him. Something doesn’t smell right. And these recent stories of new-builds falling apart don’t help. I hope everything works out okay for him.

One thing I wonder is how exactly does this income-restricted new-build condo concept work in terms of equity. A new-build studio in this city typically goes for well over $300K at a minimum. Does that mean my buddy instantaneously doubles his money the moment he signs the paperwork? My assumption is no 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 way. Obviously. My guess is, whatever monetary value the place gains is completely disconnected from reality. But I haven’t looked into it. It’s one complicated little slice of the market I’ve never taken the time to understand.

Anyway, I worry about the guy. He’s so excited about this place but something about the idea of a $150K new-build condo just doesn’t smell right.

I don’t trust new-builds right now.

RE: Affordable housing equity...

If I remember correctly, most Denver for-sale affordable programs do allow equity to build -- but they limit your home equity to no more than 3% each year. If the market increases 10% in a given year, you only get 3%. Keeps the cost of the affordable housing down and gives equity to the homeowner.

[TakeFive]

Downtown Denver only half recovered from COVID pandemic
Aug 26, 2022 by: DJ Summers - KDVR

If this sounds familiar it's b/c it's the same data source which I previously posted about. The good news is no politics here but a rather well written article.

One thing worth pointing out is they extracted the map of downtown Denver that was used for their analysis. See Here. As you can see downtown does NOT include Ball Park or RiNo neighborhoods (which makes sense).
---------------------------

Many may have noticed how in recent years several developers from Chicago have come to Denver. Were they looking for 'greener pastures' or just trying to beat the rush out of town?

https://www.bisnow.com/chicago/news/comm...hake-cities-like-chicago-114407?rt=88442

After teasing a departure over the city’s rise in violent crime for months, billionaire Ken Griffin finally bit the bullet this past June, announcing plans to move his investment firm Citadel from downtown Chicago to Miami, complaining the city had become too dangerous to house the multinational hedge fund.

“If people aren’t safe here, they’re not going to live here,” Griffin told The Wall Street Journal this spring, pointing to colleagues who'd been mugged at gunpoint, stabbed or burglarized. “I mean, that’s a really difficult backdrop with which to draw talent to your city from.”

Some may not be familiar with Ken Griffin/Citadel but there's more, much more.

Griffin is not the first executive to express major concerns about crime’s impact on the city's business community nor the first to decamp for greener pastures — aerospace giant Boeing and equipment manufacturer Caterpillar also announced plans to leave the city in recent months.

Boeing is moving to Arlington, VA and Caterpillar is moving to the Dallas-Fort Worth suburbs.

Note: - It's not like Denver is sitting on their thumbs; they are making an effort. RTD was recently in the news for adding to their Security detail with a focus on Union Station. It is frustrating to see all the money that 'crime' etc is costing the city but that's the world we live in, I guess. Without better 'low tolerance' boundaries it's hard to get ahead of things.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

No - this is a well supported, data-driven approach driven by behavioral economics. You make people pay more for trash, they'll produce less of it. You make composting free, they'll start using more of it. You make trash more expensive and recycling more frequent, people will recycle more.

Exactly. The local details are a variable, but the concept is proven many times over, and in many categories--cigarettes, driving habits, shopping bags...

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

Exactly. The local details are a variable, but the concept is proven many times over, and in many categories--cigarettes, driving habits, shopping bags...

And there are just as many examples of these schemes not changing behavior because of a total lack of enforcement.

If everybody has to pay some base amount, it will not reduce consumption unless you can reduce to zero, which few people can.

If you intend to reduce the level of consumption by charging more for more, then you need to ensure that you can't still still consume more without paying for it. We have no plan for this.

This is also basic economics and proven many times over. My neighbor's bin is essentially a black market for producing trash. And it's a black market that nearly every house in Denver has ready access to at no cost to themselves.

EDIT: I do agree that making composting free will increase usage. Recycling was already free; I have not experienced a problem with infrequent pickup causing diversion - it was no effort at all to get a second recycling bin. And I can use my neighbors'...

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

If you search redfin or zillow for homes in Denver, and sort by price, the very cheapest piece of real estate you will find in the entire city is a 330 square-foot condo in a new-build on 6th and Inca. $150K. They’re income restricted. I don’t qualify for one but a close friend of mine does and he recently bought one. I worry a bit for him. Something doesn’t smell right. And these recent stories of new-builds falling apart don’t help. I hope everything works out okay for him.

One thing I wonder is how exactly does this income-restricted new-build condo concept work in terms of equity. A new-build studio in this city typically goes for well over $300K at a minimum. Does that mean my buddy instantaneously doubles his money the moment he signs the paperwork? My assumption is no 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 way. Obviously. My guess is, whatever monetary value the place gains is completely disconnected from reality. But I haven’t looked into it. It’s one complicated little slice of the market I’ve never taken the time to understand.

Anyway, I worry about the guy. He’s so excited about this place but something about the idea of a $150K new-build condo just doesn’t smell right.

I don’t trust new-builds right now.

The 6th & Inca condos are deed-restricted. So you just get your money back if you sell, no appreciation

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is also basic economics and proven many times over. My neighbor's bin is essentially a black market for producing trash. And it's a black market that nearly every house in Denver has ready access to at no cost to themselves.

Cameras in the alley and overzealous neighbors can help.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

No - this is a well supported, data-driven approach driven by behavioral economics. You make people pay more for trash, they'll produce less of it. You make composting free, they'll start using more of it. You make trash more expensive and recycling more frequent, people will recycle more.

I already recycle and compost. My behavior won’t change but thanks for the fee. What will change is even more distrust will grow between neighbors and leftover trash will end up collecting in the alleys. Again, did this so called data driven approach calculate how neglecting recycling and composting prior factors in? You are suggesting people will suddenly compost and that will save the day. The logical hole asks why not do that without the trash fights and see what happens? Nobody tried. But the fact that they don’t want you reducing bin size says it all.
This is 100% a revenue grab. The mailer also clearly stated that it was one of the few legal ways they could raise money.

So my guess is that the supporters here probably work of the city and are just pumping party line 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And there are just as many examples of these schemes not changing behavior because of a total lack of enforcement.

If everybody has to pay some base amount, it will not reduce consumption unless you can reduce to zero, which few people can.

If you intend to reduce the level of consumption by charging more for more, then you need to ensure that you can't still still consume more without paying for it. We have no plan for this.

This is also basic economics and proven many times over. My neighbor's bin is essentially a black market for producing trash. And it's a black market that nearly every house in Denver has ready access to at no cost to themselves.

EDIT: I do agree that making composting free will increase usage. Recycling was already free; I have not experienced a problem with infrequent pickup causing diversion - it was no effort at all to get a second recycling bin. And I can use my neighbors'...

Nothing is free about this composting. Same as before except we all get bins now. They’re forcing us to pay for composting now. Don’t get it twisted.


The city will claim a win and con the next city with this “data driven” approach
1 charge a fee = revenue = win
2 finally add enough recycling and composting services to fulfill the city’s needs, something lacking prior, so obviously some old landfill waste will go elsewhere. Another win if there’s no context.

More money, less landfill. Makes a great headline.

[bunt_q]

The city seems to have found a lot of new revenue sources in the last decade. And still, there's never money for anything.

[TakeFive]

Rhetorical Question: Is there anything left for the City of Denver budget to fund?

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The city seems to have found a lot of new revenue sources in the last decade. And still, there's never money for anything.

Voters will decide in November whether to help fund Denver Public Libraries through a property tax increase
Aug. 22, 2022 By Desiree Mathurin/Denverite

Come November, Denver voters will get to choose whether they want to help increase funding for Denver Public Library services by increasing their property taxes.

Surely there's other awesome causes that deserve dedicated funding.

I hereby propose a new Dog Park Tax so that Denver can have dog-worthy parks and be Poop-Free.




.....

Can anybody else think of a good cause deserving funding?

[TakeFive]

Pinkard Awarded Sun Valley Affordable Housing Infrastructure Project in Denver
August 25, 2022 - Mile High CRE


Sun Valley Neighborhood southbound view, courtesy of Pinkard.

The Sun Valley Neighborhood is currently comprised of a disconnected street grid and an island of concentrated poverty, which isolates Sun Valley from economic opportunity and area amenities.

The scope of work restores the historical street grid, updates sitewide civil infrastructure, and develops the first phase of a new Riverfront Park along the Platte River trail. Speaking about the project, Construction Manager, Jess Becerra, said, “Our teams have shown Denver Housing Authority we truly want to be a partner of their vision and change the Denver Metro area in a good way.”

The project site is located within the Sun Valley neighborhood, between 11th Avenue on the north, 9th Avenue on the south, Decatur Street on the west and the Platte River on the east.

I can recall back when the masterplan for this neighborhood was debated and approved. New affordable housing projects have been built recently and the masterplan vision continues to develop.