DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

If its a common good then everyone should pay a (relatively) fair share, no?

I buy into the argument that the linear feet of sidewalk fronting a property is analogous to the storm water fee. But I can see how someone on a corner lot would be pissed with the proposal.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I buy into the argument that the linear feet of sidewalk fronting a property is analogous to the storm water fee. But I can see how someone on a corner lot would be pissed with the proposal.

Curious how you see the analogy. The less impervious land on your property the more you are putting pressure on the storm water system. It is a user fee - your use is directly linked to your fee.

The sidewalk fee has absolutely nothing to do with use - calling it a ‘user fee’ is patently fraudulent. It is a cheap way to get a proposal approved by voters by pushing the costs onto the fewest possible while promising fantasy returns for the investment given. As we have already gone through, it is not linked to the cost of replacement, nor the existing liability for each property owner — it just uses a poorly thought out proxy to estimate each. The proponents admit as much by essentially saying ‘city council should fix our half baked proposal’ when it passes. That’s not how good policy is made.

Ultimately this is a proposal for corner lot owners to build out the missing sidewalk infrastructure in neighborhoods while the rest of our sidewalks will undoubtedly fall into worse disrepair in the next decade

But seriously, what happens if/when the build out costs 4x the amount suggested by the proponents?

[bunt_q]

How is it “not linked to the cost of replacement, nor the existing liability for each property owner”? The fee is directly proportionate to the square footage of concrete in front of a house. You can agree or disagree with the proposal, but you’re factual wrong in saying the fee isn’t linked to a property’s liability today.

To answer your question, if it comes in 4x more expensive, then it’ll take longer to finish. Like every other major project that experiences cost overruns.

Bet it would still get done before rail to Boulder.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Have folks never been to old Europe and experienced just how poor accessibility on many levels (in addition to sidewalks) is there for the majority of Europeans? All of the large European city centers and the smaller but dense towns strewn throughout have generally terrible sidewalks or none at all. Europe is big on shared infrastructure (ie road is the sidewalk) because they just don't have the space we do. There are spots of the big European city centers that offer amazing accessibility, but the vast majority of that continent has poor accessibility and somehow manages to out-live and out-smart us Americans. That said, their public transportation blows us out of the water. Are we missing something here?

I am all for sidewalks - we are a rich country and government on it's own should be able to provide this stuff for how much money they take in. That said, this conversation is one of luxury relative to much of the rest of the world.

I agree that this used to be somewhat true - a lot of European city centers were cobblestones that maaaybe had little slivers of concrete on the side for people to walk. Cars and scooters were everywhere and even though the cities were pedestrian-friendly they were still centered around the car because, like you said, the streets were narrow and people still wanted to be able to drive to wherever they needed. But it has changed a LOT in the last 10 years and especially over the last 3-5.

I was in Bavaria and Tyrol with my family over the spring and almost every town and city had moved to a pedestrian-first and commuter-first model. I hadn't been back to Munich and Salzburg in a decade and both had closed off their Altstadts to traffic and created large pedestrian-only areas that used to be busy streets.

Every city we went to had narrowed large boulevards, added more pedestrian crossings, removed lanes for bike lanes, and most importantly built civic infrastructure like parking garages to make access to these areas easier. They all had automatic bollards to allow deliveries and locals to access the inner streets, and so many more ramps, lifts, and bypasses for accessibility.

And it wasn't just the big city centers and tourist traps - we re-visited a few suburbs and small towns for first time in 30+ years and they had been transformed too, with sidewalks and bike lanes added and streets narrowed or slowed. This was true even in Italy, which is not even close to the US in terms of GDP and is not traditionally known for the quality of their infrastructure.

At the same time the highways were surprisingly well-maintained considering the weather in the Alps... And new interchanges and bypasses were being built to shuttle people in and around the dense (and now even slower-moving) city centers. It's not like the Germans are just giving up their cars or not driving, and they seem to be able to manage the idea of balancing driving and living in a city better than we are. Or at least they haven't descended into a death cycle of favoring the needs of ever-larger trucks with ever-brighter lights over anything else.


I came back from that trip depressed to be honest. You could see the civic investment in action throughout Europe and the commitment to building infrastructure. Coming back to the US and to Denver it felt like returning to a third-world country. We've spent the last 40 years dismantling the social state and refusing to pay taxes and now it's really starting to show itself. We are debating whether it's worth paying for sidewalks, transit, and services while everything crumbles around us. And the crumbing is only getting worse and the resistance to paying greater.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Looked up where? That is even less than the proponents' assumed replacement cost that has been heavily criticized by Councilman Flynn and others.

At DOTI's average replacement cost, you'd pay $53,000 for that job. You'd probably pay $40-50k if they did it for you (which under current law, they could order without your permission).

I live on a corner lot. I already paid $2800 to fix about 8% of my side walks back int he original sidewalk plan in 2018 (my neighborhood was first). Now I have to pay to replace 100% my sidewalks every 18 years even though they'll never be touch again? How is that a cheaper alternative that leaving my sidewalks alone or fix them as they go?

It's like you're suggesting "don't pay for the maintenance on tires every 2 years... just buy a new car every 5! it's cheaper!!"

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

How is it “not linked to the cost of replacement, nor the existing liability for each property owner”? The fee is directly proportionate to the square footage of concrete in front of a house. You can agree or disagree with the proposal, but you’re factual wrong in saying the fee isn’t linked to a property’s liability today.

Its not linked to the cost of replacement because many sidewalks don't need to be replaced, and won't need to in the next 30-40 years. The financial liability for a home with new sidewalks is essentially zero for the lifetime of that owner. And the replacement cost for a home with no sidewalk is exponentially higher than those that have already been installed and need 1-2 slabs replaced. So again - big disconnect with fee structure and actual costs.

Where does the money for someone with no replacement needs go? To build sidewalks across town in a neighborhood that doesn't have them. Its a redistribution of funds from some neighborhoods to others, but not related to the costs that property owner is facing.

Another example of where there is a complete disconnect between the fee structure and replacement costs: The fee structure forces those on 'residential arterials' to pay 70% more than 'local' or 'collector' sidewalks, despite the fact Denver's Complete Street Guidelines indicate the preferred width for residential arterials is 6 feet - the same as 'local' and 'collector' sidewalks. So why are they taxed 70% more, despite having the same amount of concrete as local collectors? Or is this one of the areas where the proponents wrote a half baked proposal '...that city council should fix because we didn't have time to put thought into it and accidentally overcharged some by 70% TEE HEE OPSSSSS! :') '

[CONative]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

I agree that this used to be somewhat true - a lot of European city centers were cobblestones that maaaybe had little slivers of concrete on the side for people to walk. Cars and scooters were everywhere and even though the cities were pedestrian-friendly they were still centered around the car because, like you said, the streets were narrow and people still wanted to be able to drive to wherever they needed. But it has changed a LOT in the last 10 years and especially over the last 3-5.

I was in Bavaria and Tyrol with my family over the spring and almost every town and city had moved to a pedestrian-first and commuter-first model. I hadn't been back to Munich and Salzburg in a decade and both had closed off their Altstadts to traffic and created large pedestrian-only areas that used to be busy streets.

Every city we went to had narrowed large boulevards, added more pedestrian crossings, removed lanes for bike lanes, and most importantly built civic infrastructure like parking garages to make access to these areas easier. They all had automatic bollards to allow deliveries and locals to access the inner streets, and so many more ramps, lifts, and bypasses for accessibility.

And it wasn't just the big city centers and tourist traps - we re-visited a few suburbs and small towns for first time in 30+ years and they had been transformed too, with sidewalks and bike lanes added and streets narrowed or slowed. This was true even in Italy, which is not even close to the US in terms of GDP and is not traditionally known for the quality of their infrastructure.

At the same time the highways were surprisingly well-maintained considering the weather in the Alps... And new interchanges and bypasses were being built to shuttle people in and around the dense (and now even slower-moving) city centers. It's not like the Germans are just giving up their cars or not driving, and they seem to be able to manage the idea of balancing driving and living in a city better than we are. Or at least they haven't descended into a death cycle of favoring the needs of ever-larger trucks with ever-brighter lights over anything else.


I came back from that trip depressed to be honest. You could see the civic investment in action throughout Europe and the commitment to building infrastructure. Coming back to the US and to Denver it felt like returning to a third-world country. We've spent the last 40 years dismantling the social state and refusing to pay taxes and now it's really starting to show itself. We are debating whether it's worth paying for sidewalks, transit, and services while everything crumbles around us. And the crumbing is only getting worse and the resistance to paying greater.

This is WAY dramatic -- and frankly, wrong. I have been to Europe (mostly western European countries) many times in the past 5 years... and spend time in the real neighborhoods of several cities for work (not the tourist areas), and I can tell you that European cities have dilapitaded areas just like we do. They have infrastructure that is "crumbling" just like we do. They also have nice fresh highways and infrastructure -- just like we do.

[Denver]

Construction permits were just issued for 255 22nd St. in Uptown. Opus is the developer. It is 12 stories with 270 Units with retail fronting 20th st. Unfortunately the design appears to be significantly VE'ed from the original design proposed for the site.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

...Every city we went to had narrowed large boulevards, added more pedestrian crossings, removed lanes for bike lanes, and most importantly built civic infrastructure like parking garages to make access to these areas easier. They all had automatic bollards to allow deliveries and locals to access the inner streets, and so many more ramps, lifts, and bypasses for accessibility....

...Or at least they haven't descended into a death cycle of favoring the needs of ever-larger trucks with ever-brighter lights over anything else.


I came back from that trip depressed to be honest. You could see the civic investment in action throughout Europe and the commitment to building infrastructure. Coming back to the US and to Denver it felt like returning to a third-world country. We've spent the last 40 years dismantling the social state and refusing to pay taxes and now it's really starting to show itself. We are debating whether it's worth paying for sidewalks, transit, and services while everything crumbles around us. And the crumbing is only getting worse and the resistance to paying greater.

Europeans have gone from being stuck in the entitlement state 20 years ago to now solving problems - actually making government work - and it's showing. I think we are about 20 years behind them in that regard with respect to political will. We don't HAVE to solve these problems yet, but we will soon NEED to. That said, while their infrastructure may be improving, ours is still vastly more accessible - think sidewalks, building entry, vertical building transportation, etc.

Not sure why you think we've dismantled the social state - it's actually bigger, more complex, and better funded at this moment today than it ever has been in the past. We have more dollars, more people, and more legislation than ever before and I would argue it's providing less and less as it grows because of point #1 above regarding political will. Diminishing returns.

Case Study 1: In a 20' Right of Way (errrr, 2,000 year old roman wagon road) in a Euro-village they can accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, cars, trucks, small buses, fire trucks, and ambulances. We need a minimum of 60' to accommodate all of that, at the very least.

Case Study 2: In a 60' Right of Way (boulevard) in a Euro-city they fit pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, cars, delivery trucks, transport trucks, fire trucks, ambulances, small buses, large buses, and a train WITH manicured beautiful tree lined park spaces separating directions. In that same amount of space, we require 11' travel lanes (2 in each direction and room for turning lanes) which leaves us with 16' for everything else - tree lawn, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. The Euro-equivalent basically has 32' of roads (which can accommodate trains and buses) and the other 28' is dedicated to peds, bikes, sidewalks, open spaces/trees, etc.

The simple fact is that this country prioritizes industry over people - that has advantages ie resilient economy, lower cost of business, etc but it comes at the expense of our quality of life as it pertains to the built environment. People are waking up to the reality that living in a function, beautiful place has tangible benefits - DOTI not included.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

...Where does the money for someone with no replacement needs go? To build sidewalks across town in a neighborhood that doesn't have them. Its a redistribution of funds from some neighborhoods to others, but not related to the costs that property owner is facing...

It's a simple progressive tax, that's all. It will take from those who have and give to those who don't for the benefit of the poorest amongst us - ie folks who HAVE to take public transport, or HAVE to walk to the grocery store, or HAVE to catch Access-a-Ride.

Looks like it narrowly passed...sidewalks, or at least money for them, here they come...

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by CONative

This is WAY dramatic -- and frankly, wrong. I have been to Europe (mostly western European countries) many times in the past 5 years... and spend time in the real neighborhoods of several cities for work (not the tourist areas), and I can tell you that European cities have dilapitaded areas just like we do. They have infrastructure that is "crumbling" just like we do. They also have nice fresh highways and infrastructure -- just like we do.

Sure, it's not a perfect wonderland - Paris is a little like New York in the 90s, most industrial cities in France and northwestern Europe are dirty and covered in graffiti (in fact, every European city is covered in graffiti), Northern Italy outside of Milan, southern Spain, and most of Portugal have a ton of rotting industrial... It's even more pronounced when you go east - even amazing places like Prague and Lviv have huge swaths of old Soviet bloc housing and factories that are slowly rotting in place.

BUT all these places are still re-investing in their infrastructure and pouring money into transit and pedestrian experiences. Paris keeps closing off more of the city to cars and improving bike and pedestrian infrastructure... And unlike NY in the 90s or now, the trains and subway stations have been maintained. Even the ones covered in graffiti or full of gabber-listening tweakers aren't as ramshackle as ones in NY that sit under billion-dollar properties. There are new high-speed train lines in Southern Spain and cities are adding bike lanes, despite endless cycles of strikes and economic hardship and being surrounded by abandoned towns and rapid desertification. And even the bleakest industrial towns continue to expand and improve their train systems. Hell, unless you're talking the small, way-off-the-beaten-path towns, every town over 10k people has at least semi-decent train service.

Once again, we're fighting tooth and nail over money for sidewalks while the "dilapidated" cities of Europe are investing in their cities. We are never going to build trains to Boulder, or Fort Collins, or Colorado Springs in the current fiscal climate and BRT down one arterial has taken forever and was a battle and I can guarantee the next one will be even harder to approve.

And I agree with Laniroj - the issue here is one of political will, and not the specifics of what one European city or Asian city or African city or American city is doing or not doing. We have so many opportunities and abilities here and we don't have the leadership in Denver to have anything figured out. 30+ year timelines or a high cost to certain individuals are failures of civic leadership and planning. Once upon a time this city built DIA despite a lot of pushback and ugly media coverage, but 30 years later figuring out the most basic infrastructure is nigh-impossible because no one in power is advocating for it effectively or fighting for workable solutions and therefore paying for it has become a nightmare of competing concerns.

If we want to plan for a bright future for Denver, we have to start comparing ourselves to places much better and not just saying "Not everywhere in Europe is better" or "We're doing so much better than Omaha, or Gary, or Mogadishu". We have to be able to convince people that future improvements are actually good, that quality of life improvements are worth small inconveniences, and that sometimes paying a little more in taxes can make the place better overall if it helps maintain the city. We should be looking at places that are much nicer and saying "we want that" and planning on how to build it. But we have local, state, and national civic leadership that struggles with paying for anything outside of public safety.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Denver

Construction permits were just issued for 255 22nd St. in Uptown. Opus is the developer. It is 12 stories with 270 Units with retail fronting 20th st. Unfortunately the design appears to be significantly VE'ed from the original design proposed for the site.

Yeah. It went from NAVA's condo proposal to an apartment proposal by Opus so there's not a ton of surprise that they VE'ed the original glass curtain wall proposal. Would be nice if they went with some more brick and less EIFS for the lower-visibility sections.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Sure, it's not a perfect wonderland - Paris is a little like New York in the 90s, most industrial cities in France and northwestern Europe are dirty and covered in graffiti (in fact, every European city is covered in graffiti), Northern Italy outside of Milan, southern Spain, and most of Portugal have a ton of rotting industrial... It's even more pronounced when you go east - even amazing places like Prague and Lviv have huge swaths of old Soviet bloc housing and factories that are slowly rotting in place.

BUT all these places are still re-investing in their infrastructure and pouring money into transit and pedestrian experiences. Paris keeps closing off more of the city to cars and improving bike and pedestrian infrastructure... And unlike NY in the 90s or now, the trains and subway stations have been maintained. Even the ones covered in graffiti or full of gabber-listening tweakers aren't as ramshackle as ones in NY that sit under billion-dollar properties. There are new high-speed train lines in Southern Spain and cities are adding bike lanes, despite endless cycles of strikes and economic hardship and being surrounded by abandoned towns and rapid desertification. And even the bleakest industrial towns continue to expand and improve their train systems. Hell, unless you're talking the small, way-off-the-beaten-path towns, every town over 10k people has at least semi-decent train service.

Once again, we're fighting tooth and nail over money for sidewalks while the "dilapidated" cities of Europe are investing in their cities. We are never going to build trains to Boulder, or Fort Collins, or Colorado Springs in the current fiscal climate and BRT down one arterial has taken forever and was a battle and I can guarantee the next one will be even harder to approve.

And I agree with Laniroj - the issue here is one of political will, and not the specifics of what one European city or Asian city or African city or American city is doing or not doing. We have so many opportunities and abilities here and we don't have the leadership in Denver to have anything figured out. 30+ year timelines or a high cost to certain individuals are failures of civic leadership and planning. Once upon a time this city built DIA despite a lot of pushback and ugly media coverage, but 30 years later figuring out the most basic infrastructure is nigh-impossible because no one in power is advocating for it effectively or fighting for workable solutions and therefore paying for it has become a nightmare of competing concerns.

If we want to plan for a bright future for Denver, we have to start comparing ourselves to places much better and not just saying "Not everywhere in Europe is better" or "We're doing so much better than Omaha, or Gary, or Mogadishu". We have to be able to convince people that future improvements are actually good, that quality of life improvements are worth small inconveniences, and that sometimes paying a little more in taxes can make the place better overall if it helps maintain the city. We should be looking at places that are much nicer and saying "we want that" and planning on how to build it. But we have local, state, and national civic leadership that struggles with paying for anything outside of public safety.

I'm not sure how this is an argument, except that the only thing the US leads the world in is telling the world we lead them in everything. I thought comparable infrastructure and public transit to Miami and Orlando was found when I went to Belize. Places like Spain, UK, and especially Japan look like they are in a different century than most of the US.

And yeah, obviously everywhere has its dilapidated places; but saying they aren't perfect and therefore we are just as good doesn't work.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Looked up where? That is even less than the proponents' assumed replacement cost that has been heavily criticized by Councilman Flynn and others.

At DOTI's average replacement cost, you'd pay $53,000 for that job. You'd probably pay $40-50k if they did it for you (which under current law, they could order without your permission).

Sounds like you agree with the proponents that sidewalks could be replaced better and cheaper. You just didn't know it.

Someone posted the instructions on Nextdoor (so it must be true) where I looked up my property to find the linear feet of sidewalk I had, then multiply that by the $3 and some cents.

[TakeFive]

Hats off to the sidewalk crowd



Ken said it well and it's fair to congratulate the group of passionate supporters who put forth tons of effort and energy to reach their sidewalk dream.

My Two Cents

A) There should have been a cap on corner lots so as not to punish those owners.

B) Equity Games

I would agree with Flynn to the extent that most of the 'favored' neighborhoods east of I-25 either are or will experience gentrification. Additionally it's not the residents that save the money it's the property owner and if the property owner is a landlord they don't need the break.

C) Senior Sensitivity

I would have preferred either a cap or break for seniors. I understand many would prefer seniors move out of Denver for affordability reasons but that does not reflect my value system.

Win for the Denver Denver Streets Partnership (and friends)

For me, sidewalks would be way down the list of priorities and I suspect this accomplishment will be more symbolic than impactful.

But a passionate group of people decided sidewalks were the 'be all, end all' and worked tirelessly to accomplish what they wanted. I did happen to say years ago that a 'dedicated revenue stream' was the way to go... and here we are. And bunt is correct that if it takes longer than nine years "So what?"

[mhays]

Congrats from Seattle, which badly needs a similar measure, particularly outside the mid-century city limits where many streets were built with rural standards. Heck, I might even give a first rounder back in a trade.

[TakeFive]

Of course it's political; everything is

Originally Posted by mojiferous

And I agree with Laniroj - the issue here is one of political will, and not the specifics of what one European city or Asian city or African city or American city is doing or not doing. We have so many opportunities and abilities here and we don't have the leadership in Denver to have anything figured out. 30+ year timelines or a high cost to certain individuals are failures of civic leadership and planning.

I'm not nearly as 'radical' as most but most Americans bristle when someone tries to compare America to European cities or even to NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago etc.

bunt (and others) has previously articulated the differences in density and geography between most of America and Europe or Big City life and most people are quite happy with their suburban lifestyles.

My Uber Story

It's interesting that about 80% of my residential pickups are at homes with two or even three cars. The reasons for using Uber/Lyft are endless. And for those who are carless rideshare is typically the preferred mode of travel. Better to pay for rideshare and have income than sit at home watching the Tee Vee. (But please be toes to the curb and not make me have to wait for your sorry slow 🞵🞵🞵)

Blame Gen Z and Millennials

They crave convenience and won't settle for less. Blame the rest of us who want convenience. Rideshare comes to their door and provides not only convenience but a safe and secure trip.

The Transit Conundrum

At best transit is useful for maybe 20% of people. Rideshare is useful for anybody with a credit or debit card.

Living in the City

As the Denver City Center continues to densify it's easy enough to envision more of an 'urban' environment. But when you speak of a "little inconvenience" I suspect you don't understand how important 'convenience and security' is to most people.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Congrats from Seattle, which badly needs a similar measure, particularly outside the mid-century city limits where many streets were built with rural standards. Heck, I might even give a first rounder back in a trade.

So I recently picked up a family (mom and two kids) from Seattle; actually I have picked others from the state but not necessarily the Seattle area. There destination was In-N-Out Burger. Not unusual as I picked up a guy from Miami the same week who made the same trip. With a big work area for handling both drive-thru and walk-in traffic I counted 15 employees scurrying around.

I was complementing them on Seattle voters stepping up to pay for such great transit. HS Senior kept saying it's taking too long, lol. So I googled; it looks like there's some construction quality issues as well as engineering challenges with the East Link. It doesn't seem that traumatic and that is a challenging line. It looks like lots of delays here and there but that seems to be the life of today's construction project challenges and not unique to Seattle.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mhays

Congrats from Seattle, which badly needs a similar measure, particularly outside the mid-century city limits where many streets were built with rural standards. Heck, I might even give a first rounder back in a trade.

First rounder and Geno Smith and you have a deal!

[mhays]

Geno might be legit better than Russ, but it's also a better system and coaches, as well as each QB's familiarity with his system.

As for Link construction, a big QC fix is delaying things in one area, bad soils require redesign in another, and everything has pushed back due to Covid and supply issues. It's not earth-shattering but some openings will be back a year-plus.