DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by i4isoar

I bring up Singapore as an example of a city that has plenty of ugly high-rise buildings in it, but is still considered a vibrant place in spite of that. My point is: ugly architecture, by itself, does not necessarily detract from a city's character, quality of life, or "urban fabric". Tokyo, Miami, Phoenix, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Hong Kong... they all have plenty of ugly buildings too, which people often forget about because it's usually the nicer parts that show up in postcards or tourism ads.

Do I wish AMLI's proposed plans for 9th and Broadway looked better? Of course. Do I agree that it looks like a "mediocre Marriott"? Yes, definitely. But at the end of the day, it's bringing more housing and more revenue (in terms of both taxes and more customers for local businesses) to that area, and to the city as a whole, and it's not much worse than many other buildings already built in that area.

Cap Hill is an excellent example of this. TONS of really ugly 1960's/70's mid-rise buildings everywhere, but it's still one of the best urban fabrics we have with an incredible (by Denver standards) mix of housing/uses.

[TakeFive]

Talk about NIMBY-ism

Kyle Harris/Denverite pens a thorough piece about all the Park Hill Golf Course confusion.

Originally Posted by laniroj

Our gubment tried this in the post WWII years and it was a terrible disaster and ignited the "blight" movement. We tore down half a million housing units nationwide next to old industrial war factories and only replaced about 1/5 of them.

Impressive knowledge and agree with Cap Hill perspective.

[twalm]

Oh look more car-centric development.

We should not be encouraging this type of development as good inflill. It is not mixed-use or walkable. As mentioned it is close to shopping, but residents will have to cross an ocean of parking lots to get there.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Speaking of density metro-wide

These guys completely flew under my radar so it was fun to read about them in the Denver Business Journal.

Multifamily developer inks new office lease as it doubles down on Denver
Jan 18, 2023 By Kate Tracy – Reporter , Denver Business Journal


https://www.thegarrettco.com/experience

SOUTHLANDS II - Aurora






All images courtesy The Garrett Companies

These folks are smart developers; no wonder they are having so much success. Who else is building apartments with a 'missing middle' appeal that includes garages. There must be tons of people wanting to rent a unit with a garage.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by twalm

Oh look more car-centric development.

We should not be encouraging this type of development as good inflill. It is not mixed-use or walkable. As mentioned it is close to shopping, but residents will have to cross an ocean of parking lots to get there.

It's fair to say that Southlands wasn't the best designed 'Lifestyle Center.' It's admittedly been too long since I've seen the area. With the right tenant mix it could be magnet for entertainment and shopping but you need the right mix of restaurants and sports bars etc.

But I'll agree with you with respect to walkability. Tenants who live there really should call for an Uber/Lyft ride.

Speaking of SE Aurora

Southeast Aurora Recreation Center and Fieldhouse Celebrates Grand Opening
January 23, 2023 - Mile High CRE

This week, global design firm Populous and the City of Aurora will celebrate the grand opening of Southeast Aurora’s 77,000-square-foot recreation center and field house at 25400 E Alexander Dr.

“This new recreation center and field house stands apart as a breathtaking example of a community asset that is built to reflect, benefit and showcase its people and its landscape,” said Gudmundur Jonsson, senior architect and principal at Populous. “The City of Aurora now has another cost-effective and operationally-efficient space that will allow it to further serve its community.”

Images courtesy of Populous

[TakeFive]

Side Pocket Topic: The Really Big advantage of HUGE parking lots.

Originally Posted by twalm

Oh look more car-centric development.

We should not be encouraging this type of development as good inflill. It is not mixed-use or walkable. As mentioned it is close to shopping, but residents will have to cross an ocean of parking lots to get there.

Your parents, if they lived in Denver might remember Cinderella City Shopping Center. Let's just say over time it didn't age well but back in the day it was quite the celebrity.

The same vintage of shopping center down here is called Metro Center; 50 years later it looks like a bombed out center. There's no shortage of tenants except homeless tenants don't pay the bills. But not unlike Park Meadows the perimeter drive is thriving with two steak houses (etc) right next door to each other and both places packed with patrons.

Metro Center is (now) in a blue collar area; a lot of Hispanics etc but these hard working people enjoy a night out just as much as anyone. There's also an amusement park called Castles and Coasters

Phoenix's Metrocenter Mall is getting a $1 billion makeover
Nov 21, 2022 by Jessica Boehm - Axios

Last week, the Phoenix City Council agreed to give a tax break to the mall's new owner, clearing the final hurdle so construction can begin early next year.

• The city is taking over ownership of the land so the owners won't have to pay property tax on the project for up to 25 years

https://kjzz.org/content/1738105/metroce...-demolished-heres-what-will-go-its-place

After years of decline, Metrocenter Mall officially closed last year. The new owners, Concord Wilshire Capital and TLG Investment Partners, will work with Hines to create what they call a community-driven walkable village, just off Interstate 17...

“We want to make it special.”
-— Chris Anderson, Hines senior managing director

Development will be done in phases to include parks, an amphitheater and more than 2,600 apartments at different price points. Christine Mackay, Phoenix economic development director, said... “It’s more known as attainable or workforce housing as opposed to subsidized housing,” Mackay said. “But more in the price point of the workforce that is in and around that particular area.”

Nate Sirang, president of Concord Wilshire, called it a rare opportunity, “Eighty acres of land right in the middle, right in the heart of Phoenix and no development opportunities available like this with a mix of uses and the mix of demand.”

Previously, the developers had convinced the city to extend light rail (a couple of miles) across the freeway (think I-25) to the west side of the property. It is scheduled to open in 2024.

And now you know the advantage of huge parking lots; it's prime land just waiting to be densely developed

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Chicago has had 3 Republican Mayors since 1900, the most recent ending in 1931. Not sure how the GOP had the power to accomplish what you assert above.

Politics aside, let's dive into your other post. Public housing...commonly referred to as 'the projects' in your typical community meeting were an utter disaster. The public housing strategy was born of the new deal and transformed a couple times, including a Supreme Court ruling in 1948 which administratively outlawed the FHA from 'maintaining homogeneous neighborhoods' (ie the racial segregation). The FHA was doing this by withholding loans both for home purchase and public housing development in certain areas - ie redlining. After this ruling, the racial strategy of public housing was 'technically' addressed and it wasn't until the Gautreaux v CHA in 1969 that the current model abandoning dense high rise in favor of scattered site was essentially mandated. To be clear, both rulings were needed to change the 'redlining' which was still happening. After 30 years of public housing failures, our gubment then introduced housing vouchers, which generally drove the apartment boom in the 60's/70's because it generally pushed occupancies of existing units which led to robust unit creation and a housing squeeze, though nothing of the likes we see today. Throughout the 50's, 60's, 70's public housing was still constructed en masse at a grand scale and still led to the creation of concentrated low incomes households, including with the Section 8 program (enacted in 1974) which then simply transferred unit production to private developers (by way of housing authorities essentially giving developers cash) instead of being done by housing authorities. This was also a massive failure as you can probably guess what happened - pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Alas, in 1986 Congress got rid of most the new construction dollars for Section 8 and essentially replaced it with Section 42 - low income housing tax credit - which followed the scattered site model and left it up to states as to what their housing priorities were for new unit production.

Regardless of politics, your assessment of those who experienced 'public housing' first hand are still vary wary of ANY non-owner-occupied housing. Community meetings are incredibly difficult for this simple fact and all the more reason that local planning departments should be proactively upzoning anywhere/everywhere we can be. If they don't Denver will follow the way of every other major blue city and become an enclave of the rich with a few slots for the lucky low income households who win the lottery.

I think you actually got the gist of my ranting correct - Take 5 was insinuating that the issues with public housing were tied to the building of bland high rise housing. I was merely pointing out that the problems with the projects were due to economic isolation and lack of opportunity and had nothing at all to do with their architecture or aesthetics. And he said that the effort to build newer mixed-use, mixed-income developments were bipartisan - so yes, you're correct there too, that the GOP had nothing to do with it!



One thing though - Gautreaux did not do away with dense development, it simply made it much harder because public housing could not isolate and concentrate the poor. Dense development with inclusion and mixed-income would be possible!

The failures of dense PJs were that those high rises were built without thought to services or that anyone that wasn't dirt poor would ever want to live there. I think we could try to build dense public housing again learning from previous mistakes - DHA could probably fill some empty lots in upper Downtown, the area around 14th & Court, Arapahoe Square, and the Golden Triangle with taller, mixed-income, mixed-use developments. More residents in those areas at more affordable price points. The biggest issue of course would be the construction cost, but if we can pay for DIA and interstate expansions we can figure out a way to pay for housing. And probably reap greater benefit.

[twalm]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Side Pocket Topic: The Really Big advantage of HUGE parking lots.

And now you know the advantage of huge parking lots; it's prime land just waiting to be densely developed

Can't argue with that!

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by twalm

Oh look more car-centric development.

We should not be encouraging this type of development as good inflill. It is not mixed-use or walkable. As mentioned it is close to shopping, but residents will have to cross an ocean of parking lots to get there.

You've got to remember change is incremental. For an exurb location like this, any marginal improvement is in the right direction.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

...I was merely pointing out that the problems with the projects were due to economic isolation and lack of opportunity and had nothing at all to do with their architecture or aesthetics. And he said that the effort to build newer mixed-use, mixed-income developments were bipartisan - so yes, you're correct there too, that the GOP had nothing to do with it!...

Not sure why the politics of it matter at all, but let's set the record straight.

1. The problem was not at all economic isolation or lack of opportunity. Many of the public housing communities were developed in previously thriving manufacturing areas (back when manufacturing was still happening here). The reason the housing failed is because the federal government handed out gobs of money to housing authorities who decided it would be a good idea to build them by the thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of units. The 'market' has quite literally never built anything like that. It was a poor product that was very poorly managed and it, predictably, failed. Nearly all of those massive legacy public housing developments have unsolvable deferred maintenance issue to this day and the only real option is to tear them down. Those gobs of money emanated from the New Deal in 1937 and then from LBJ's "Great Society" movement in the 1960's. Both of these eras which produced the framework of our public housing (its successes and failures) featured democrats passing legislation with huge political majorities in both the house and senate.

2. Section 42 is widely considered the most successful housing program in US history and was the replacement for Section 8. Section 42 was passed as part of the tax reform act of 1986 under republican President Reagan and passed by a republican house and republican senate shortly before republicans lost control of both the house and the senate to democrats in the 86' election. The tax reform act passed with majorities from both parties in both houses - it was completely bipartisan.

DHA has built somewhat dense/clustered housing at Mariposa in our new age model, though nothing even approaching the scale of what was done from the 1930's to 970's. NYC has mega projects that consist of thousands of units each. Queensbridge has 3,000+ units! Mariposa has maybe 800 units, all mixed income with some services intertwined and/or nearby.

[TakeFive]

Blue on Blue; Heartache on Heartache

It may just be that Denver is allowing too many apartments to be built, getting too dense.

Maybe the City should push some of that development into the suburbs where's there's lots of open space, nice biking trails and beautiful views of the mountains.

Will the City agree with this?

It should be interesting to hear from mayoral candidates what their position is on this issue.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Not sure why the politics of it matter at all, but let's set the record straight.

1. The problem was not at all economic isolation or lack of opportunity. Many of the public housing communities were developed in previously thriving manufacturing areas (back when manufacturing was still happening here). The reason the housing failed is because the federal government handed out gobs of money to housing authorities who decided it would be a good idea to build them by the thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of units.

2. Section 42 is widely considered the most successful housing program in US history and was the replacement for Section 8. Section 42 was passed as part of the tax reform act of 1986 under republican President Reagan...

DHA has built somewhat dense/clustered housing at Mariposa in our new age model,

though nothing even approaching the scale of what was done from the 1930's to 970's. NYC has mega projects that consist of thousands of units each. Queensbridge has 3,000+ units! Mariposa has maybe 800 units, all mixed income with some services intertwined and/or nearby.

Ah, I see now - I thought you understood the history and social issues of public housing, and you don't at all.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Ah, I see now - I thought you understood the history and social issues of public housing, and you don't at all.

Rather presumptuous. I simply pointed out that when government has gobs of money to build housing, there's a 50 year history of them really blowing it. The last 35 years of LIHTC housing have been a far greater success than anything from the mid 1930 to mid 1980 era. I also felt it important to note which political party was responsible for which public housing efforts. I'll leave the judgment to folks like you.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...Will the City agree with this?

It should be interesting to hear from mayoral candidates what their position is on this issue.

Polis has essentially killed rent control each session he's been in office. It will be interesting to see if he does so again. On it's own, rent control has a predictable result and we can look at places like NYC and SF to see what happens when rent control is administered.

I don't know about any of you, but I sure don't want our housing market to look like either of those places where housing opportunity is stagnant and families live three generations in the same place simply because their grandparents bought the place pre-rent control and they'd have to move to Colorado in order to afford housing to start a family.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Rather presumptuous. I simply pointed out that when government has gobs of money to build housing, there's a 50 year history of them really blowing it. The last 35 years of LIHTC housing have been a far greater success than anything from the mid 1930 to mid 1980 era. I also felt it important to note which political party was responsible for which public housing efforts. I'll leave the judgment to folks like you.

My father-in-law moved into Carver Houses in Spanish Harlem in the 1960's and spent his formative years there. Talking to him you do see the failure of the project model as the Black and Hispanic middle-class got the hell out of dodge and carved the heart and soul out of the communities. The product didn't have enough features to be attractive once redlining was removed as a barrier to migration and higher-income earners sought more attractive residences either in the suburbs or areas such as Midtown in Manhattan.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Rather presumptuous. I simply pointed out that when government has gobs of money to build housing, there's a 50 year history of them really blowing it. The last 35 years of LIHTC housing have been a far greater success than anything from the mid 1930 to mid 1980 era. I also felt it important to note which political party was responsible for which public housing efforts. I'll leave the judgment to folks like you.

Re-read any analysis of Gautreaux and what caused the collapse of post-war projects. "The problem was not at all economic isolation or lack of opportunity" is a take disconnected from every reasonable analysis of public housing.

Section 8 is not public housing. Section 42 is not public housing. These are programs to encourage private investment in low income housing and subsidize rent. They were designed to peel away investment from actual public housing and encourage private investment and better housing options for low income families, but in today's housing market they aren't very successful.

And putting an exclamation point on 3000 units in Queensbridge is the chef's kiss. The estimated need for public housing units in NYC is over 500,000 by 2030. The small number of units we're building today is not even close to what is needed.


And Wong - that failure was built into the projects. Even in Denver. Curtis Park, La Alma, Westridge, Sunnyside... all involved tearing down existing communities, placing a poorly-designed grouping of projects in the middle, and not encouraging any economic growth. Anyone who could afford to move left when they could and the economic decline accelerated.

[TakeFive]

There's no shortage of things one could debate and speculate about.

Speaking of the hazards of density apparently Denver's two tallest buildings may be feeling financial stress from rising interest rates - according to BusinessDen.

Reportedly some recent convention attendees have been uncomfortable with downtown's homeless issues. It's also been reported that some conventions are choosing to go elsewhere due to the same reasons. That's serious money that Denver will be losing.

Guess what the focus is of most of the mayoral candidates?

A year from now the air could go out of the push for density near the city center. Not predicting it but things do have a way of changing, often when you least expect it.

Good chance that the recent era of profligate spending in tech and with social programs could be under a lot of pressure.

Let's meet again this time next year and see what has changed or is obviously changing.

[bunt_q]

You keep tying homeless issues, office vacancy, and a sudden change in desire for density. Outside of some 1960s-era perspective, those seem like entirely unrelated issues.

Yes, work from home is impacting the office market. Obviously.

Yes, homelessness is a problem that City residents are universally concerned about.

And I see no softening at all in development demand - or relative increase in demand for low density development, not sure where that’s coming from.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I was looking at a listing of the tallest buildings in Denver and I found the proposed projects interesting. Do you all think any of these larger scale projects has a legitimate chance of being built?

More information Name, Type ...
Name Type Height*
ft / m Floors Anticipated Groundbreaking Notes
1620 Champa Residential 600 / 183 53 2023 Under Design Review
650 17th Residential 575 / 175 47 2023 Under Design Review
Two Tabor Office 492 / 150 35 - Proposed
Block 162 Hotel Hotel 450 / 138 38 - Proposed
Bell Tower Residential 410 / 125 36 2023 Under Design Review
1055 19th Tower 1 Residential 400 / 122 38 2023 Under Design Review
1055 19th Tower 2 Office 400 / 122 28 2023 Under Design Review
2099 Lawrence Mixed-Use 387 / 118 36 2023 Under Design Review
601 16th Mixed-Use 375 / 115 25 - Proposed
Downtown Denver Marriott Hotel 340 / 104 27 2023 Approved
1750 Sherman Residential 325 / 100 30 2023 Under Design Review
eVolve-East Residential 267 / 82 23 2023 Approved
Kenect Mixed-Use 250 / 77 24 2023 Approved
eVolve-West Residential 249 / 76 23 2023 Approved
Train Denver Mixed-Use 200 / 45 16 2023 Approved
600 Park Avenue Residential 148 / 45 14 2023

[TakeFive]

My posts are often littered with a tongue-in-cheek flavor

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You keep tying homeless issues, office vacancy, and a sudden change in desire for density. Outside of some 1960s-era perspective, those seem like entirely unrelated issues.

Yes, work from home is impacting the office market. Obviously.

Yes, homelessness is a problem that City residents are universally concerned about.

And I see no softening at all in development demand - or relative increase in demand for low density development, not sure where that’s coming from.

The post linked to proposed rent control was about proposed rent control in the legislature.

With respect to tall buildings, I'd assume it's more about how dated they are not literally how tall they are. Chicago is also having issues with their older taller buildings.

I did see a piece in the DBJ that a 1,000 (net) businesses have moved out of downtown since 2019 according USPS but it lacked context so not sure how interesting.

I have also stated that with financial markets loosening up, there's likely to be number of new starts over the next six months downtown. So when I reference a year from now that doesn't mean the present. We (the country) may suffer whip-lash later on.

The one advantage that 'sprawl' currently has over downtown is that it's easier to build 'workforce' housing there and the need for that is obvious.

I've always been a huge fan of the Colorado Convention Center so it pains me that people don't want to come to Denver. It didn't use to be that way.

True Story

There was a huge soccer tournament in November in NE Phoenix/Scottsdale. I picked up a guy from Dallas and we were talking up a storm about cities. Out of the blue he says "The problem with Denver is it has a big homeless problem" I wondered later how he had come up with that. Word gets around I guess. The difference is when visitors come to the desert they don't see the Valley's huge homeless problem. I also figured that being from Dallas the guy's likely a typical suburbanite. Then it occurred to me that likely reflects the average convention attendee?

I want Denver to reclaim it's downtown; I want it to be shiny and friendly.

[bunt_q]

You don’t actually see homeless people around the convention center or nearby. It’s a weird data point; the information feels about 9-18 months out of date.

Now, do I pass by open campfires on the sidewalk three blocks from my kids’ school? And does it take two days after I post this on facebook before I see the fire department swing by to suggest that maybe, just maybe, there’s a better way to keep warm? Yes. But tourists don’t see that stuff.