DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

In Denver, is Historic designation used for ANY other purpose than to oppose development? I'm starting to have a bias for anyone who says they are interested in historic architecture thinking what they really mean is they want to halt any and all development for any reason whatsoever... while simultaneously whining about the rent being high.

Nope.

Don't get me wrong, it's a nice house that someone will eventually pick up, gut the interior, and then sell for ~$2.5M. A nice upper middle-class white couple from out of state will move in who Candi will promptly vilify as destroying the soul of Denver. Rinse and repeat.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Jeez man, for a guy who bitches about statistics....

Did you 'read' or just skim the Post. I thought I provided reasonable caveats. For example.

Colorado/Denver would seem to fall within the "noise" margin.

What did you think of my 'Gen Z' observation; Likely or not likely?

I intentionally focused

on the Big winners and Big losers. Check out the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data for their own migration statistics. You'll likely notice the similarity in results and trends.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Did you 'read' or just skim the Post. I thought I provided reasonable caveats. For example.

They sounded like well-articulated observations from a Tucker Carlson episode: garbage in, garbage out. A caveat would be acknowledging the data limitation and imprecise methodology. I get you're just wanting to post to foster some dialogue, but this is a weak one article to go off of.

What did you think of my 'Gen Z' observation; Likely or not likely?

Eh.... geographic mobility has generally trended downwards for the last several decades. But by age group the highest amount of migration occurs in late 20-years olds. Which makes sense given that this likely represents post-college graduates moving as they begin careers. However, the overall trend is still down. So likely, but not exactly a ground-breaking observation.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

In Denver, is Historic designation used for ANY other purpose than to oppose development? I'm starting to have a bias for anyone who says they are interested in historic architecture thinking what they really mean is they want to halt any and all development for any reason whatsoever... while simultaneously whining about the rent being high.

Agreed. While helping a friend knock on doors recently, he commented to a resident how beautiful her home was. She commented that she had always wondered if her home or others like it in the neighborhood would be eligible for historic protections (my guess was Yes, they probably would be). My inner voice, however, was saying "Yes - so what is stopping them from submitting an application?... oh that's right, there is no imminent development proposal to try and block."

Speaking of trying to stop development while simultaneously whining about the rent being high - word is that SB23-213 has just been gutted to the point of being essentially meaningless. And I have a sneaking suspicion that my own (Arvada) state senator is responsible.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

They sounded like well-articulated observations from a Tucker Carlson episode: garbage in, garbage out. A caveat would be acknowledging the data limitation and imprecise methodology. I get you're just wanting to post to foster some dialogue, but this is a weak one article to go off of.

That's one strange comparison but I can enjoy the humor of it.

If you know the rules of how they come up with the data then it should be obvious that the specific numbers aren't what's important. The question is do they suggest real trends or not. That's my way of understanding and not getting caught up in the dots.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Eh.... geographic mobility has generally trended downwards for the last several decades. But by age group the highest amount of migration occurs in late 20-years olds. Which makes sense given that this likely represents post-college graduates moving as they begin careers. However, the overall trend is still down. So likely, but not exactly a ground-breaking observation.

Agree with the logic of this which is different from what I'm suggesting.

I was thinking more of fresh out-of-HS or college Gen Z-ers moving to Denver because it sounds sooo cool. At some impulsive moment they realize there's not a "match" and decide to move on.

[TakeFive]

Side Topic

Originally Posted by mr1138

Speaking of trying to stop development while simultaneously whining about the rent being high - word is that SB23-213 has just been gutted to the point of being essentially meaningless. And I have a sneaking suspicion that my own state senator is responsible.

But at least the legislature is patting themselves on the back along with their dog Spot when it comes to being Pet-Friendly.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/21/landlords-must-cap-pet-rent-bill-governor-signature/

Colorado will soon cap the amount of money landlords can charge residents for pet rent. State Democrats gave final approval to a new bill this week, and now only need the governor’s signature to make it law.

How very nice of you.

“We've given options and predictability to pet lovers and pet guardians across the state,” said Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis, a Democratic sponsor of the bill. “We’ve heard from animal shelters that pet surrenders from renters have gone up, so we’re trying to save these pets and families.”

This part is especially Rich.

The measure also makes it against the law for homeowner’s insurance companies to discriminate against specific dog breeds when selling policies.

Unintended Consequences

Many insurance companies could just decide not to offer tenants policies in Colorado while others raise their premiums for tenant policies by two or three times.

Many currently pet-friendly landlords could just say "Screw it" and no longer allow pets.

I've never heard of pets being a problem in the Desert. I wondered about Scottsdale so I googled Camden Properties which has tons of apartments in Scottsdale and they're all Pet-Friendly.

But leave it to Liberals to fix a problem that isn't really a problem or they don't understand. While most pet owners are responsible there are many exceptions.

Needless to say I don't care for business-unfriendly policies or anti-free market crap.

[mhays]

There's absolutely a cycle of 20-somethings moving to certain cities to start their careers, then moving away to cheaper locales when they want big houses with yards. I imagine Denver would show this trend.

As for housepets, I'd love to live somewhere with no dogs allowed. Thankfully I'm in a condo with plenty of karens to deal with them so I never have to say anything. But there've been cases in the past where barking was (briefly) a real problem.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I was thinking more of fresh out-of-HS or college Gen Z-ers moving to Denver because it sounds sooo cool. At some impulsive moment they realize there's not a "match" and decide to move on.

Probably less of a trend then you might suppose. Colorado seems to be resuming some strong natural migration trends due to the economic migration and the natural population change is still strong. This suggests that the Redfin result is probably families moving from Denver to the 'burbs in pursuit of that 3rd or 4th bedroom to support growing families. As we know, Denver's building tons of multi-family, but not in the setup that enables families to go past one kid at the most. The last frontier of SFH growth in Denver in CP and GVR and they're rapidly approaching build-out.

The continued interesting migration trend IMO is the grey migration to the areas like TN, FL (duh), SC, AZ, NV, AL, etc. It's not young families in search of opportunity but rather the grey hairs moving to stretch their budgets. Compare that with TX, CA (gasp), UT, NY WA, GA, CO, VA, etc. I'll take the natural growth that is suggestive of strong economics fundamentals, i.e. people willing to stay and have children, versus the other migration trend that sees your state go the way of Japan.

It's the all-around strong growth of places like TX, UT, GA that remains the most impressive.

[Ndj]

Any owner-opposed historical preservation submission should require a buyout offer at the unencumbered market value by the submitter with a usage plan and proof of ability to upkeep for the next 50 years.

[TakeFive]

Well Said

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Probably less of a trend then you might suppose. Colorado seems to be resuming some strong natural migration trends due to the economic migration and the natural population change is still strong. This suggests that the Redfin result is probably families moving from Denver to the 'burbs in pursuit of that 3rd or 4th bedroom to support growing families. As we know, Denver's building tons of multi-family, but not in the setup that enables families to go past one kid at the most. The last frontier of SFH growth in Denver in CP and GVR and they're rapidly approaching build-out.

Much of this I'd agree with and while the jury may still be out on Denver's future prospects - at the worst that would still be quite good. Denver can still appeal to those coming from even more expensive states. I'd worry more about their growing business-unfriendly policies though.

Just to pick a few nits

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The continued interesting migration trend IMO is the grey migration to the areas like TN, FL (duh), SC, AZ, NV, AL, etc. It's not young families in search of opportunity but rather the grey hairs moving to stretch their budgets. Compare that with TX, CA (gasp), UT, NY WA, GA, CO, VA, etc. I'll take the natural growth that is suggestive of strong economics fundamentals, i.e. people willing to stay and have children, versus the other migration trend that sees your state go the way of Japan.

It's the all-around strong growth of places like TX, UT, GA that remains the most impressive.

Your Grey obsession is waay overrated - not that it isn't a real thing.

Florida, for example has a large and growing Hispanic population which mean growing families or natural growth. More established people moving from the NE or eve from California is very real. Same is true in Arizona.

The one huge advantage of the whole SE is their population density in general and in the NE in particular. It's why all manner of manufacturing has set up shop in those states. You won't find grey hairs manning the assembly lines at BMW, Mercedes etc. Boeing rings the bell So Carolina along with with their many suppliers etc.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Ndj

Any owner-opposed historical preservation submission should require a buyout offer at the unencumbered market value by the submitter with a usage plan and proof of ability to upkeep for the next 50 years.

In this particular case the relatively 'new' owner assumed the emotional advantage of offering 'affordable' housing would carry the day. Let's just say he counted his chickens before they hatched. It was irrelevant to the key question.

Historical preservation has rarely been an issue or won the day but it can happen when warranted. Sadly, Denver doesn't have that much left that's worth preserving unlike older cities with their large stock of historical buildings.

[Ndj]

That is entirely beside the point that owner-opposed historic designation is essential eminent domain without compensation

[TakeFive]

Very Interesting

Originally Posted by Ndj

That is entirely beside the point the owner-opposed historic designation is essential eminent domain without compensation

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Ndj

That is entirely beside the point the owner-opposed historic designation is essential eminent domain without compensation

The definition of historic in Denver: one day older than whoever is petitioning, and about to be improved.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Your Grey obsession is waay overrated - not that it isn't a real thing.

Florida, for example has a large and growing Hispanic population which mean growing families or natural growth. More established people moving from the NE or eve from California is very real. Same is true in Arizona.

The one huge advantage of the whole SE is their population density in general and in the NE in particular. It's why all manner of manufacturing has set up shop in those states. You won't find grey hairs manning the assembly lines at BMW, Mercedes etc. Boeing rings the bell So Carolina along with with their many suppliers etc.

The states I highlighted all have negative natural growth and higher than average 65-plus populations. It might be true that the migration trends of the last three years will eventually change these demographics but, right now, they're still states that are grayer.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The states I highlighted all have negative natural growth and higher than average 65-plus populations. It might be true that the migration trends of the last three years will eventually change these demographics but, right now, they're still states that are grayer.

I found this highly and uniquely interesting; a statistic I'd never heard of so I was quite curious to see where this came from.

First I found this: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-re...s,25%20states%20had%20natural%20decrease.

In 2022, 24 states experienced negative natural change, or natural decrease. Florida had the highest natural decrease at -40,216, followed by Pennsylvania (-23,021) and Ohio (-19,543). In 2021, 25 states had natural decrease.

So far so good. But my curiosity was still not satisfied. What the heck does "negative natural change" even mean?

On another Gubment website I found this explanation. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-re...20there,over%20a%20given%20time%20period.

Natural decrease occurs when there are more deaths than births in a population over a given time period.

In 2021, fewer births, an aging population and increased mortality – intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic--contributed to a rise in natural decrease.

That's an odd way to penalize Florida's growth. I would have thought you would argue that more grey hairs dying off than births would be a net positive economic benefit?

The only thing that "natural changes" do is to explain raw population growth not counting any net migration numbers.

Setting aside the morbid statistics (good grief) and from an economic POV I'd be more interested in number of births in one state versus other states, not tarnished by some funky death rate influences.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

[IMG]

That's an odd way to penalize Florida's growth. I would have thought you would argue that more grey hairs dying off than births would be a net positive economic benefit?

The only thing that "natural changes" do is to explain raw population growth not counting any net migration numbers.

Setting aside the morbid statistics (good grief) and from an economic POV I'd be more interested in number of births in one state versus other states, not tarnished by some funky death rate influences.

Also using death rates in red or purple states after the politicization of medical science (which the, in general, imbecilic tendencies of certain grey tinted voting blocks will enhance the effects of) is maybe going to be transient. I remember reading an article I can't locate now that speculated that "vaccine hesitancy" (which should be written as "stupidity") had likely caused additional COVID deaths in FL equivalent to Desantis' first election win margin - which I believe was around 30k votes or so.

Though that being said.. I agree with you that it should definitely be celebrated from, sure, an "economic" stand point.

[mhays]

Old folks pull their money out of stocks and often cost a lot for uncovered healthcare. But they also spend more than they make, fill housing, etc. Their economic benefit would be too complicated to generalize easily.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The only thing that "natural changes" do is to explain raw population growth not counting any net migration numbers.

Setting aside the morbid statistics (good grief) and from an economic POV I'd be more interested in number of births in one state versus other states, not tarnished by some funky death rate influences.

^This is why Elon says he wants so many kids. Natural changes in advanced countries are ALL trending this way. If not for immigration, we'd be doomed long term from the growth standpoint. It's a good thing pretty much the whole world still wants to move here for all that opportunity we 'don't' have in the good ol' US of A.

Throwing this metric off the last couple years significantly was covid-19 deaths AND opioid related deaths. Opioid deaths alone have actually decreased overall life expectancy in this country over the past decade.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mhays

Old folks pull their money out of stocks and often cost a lot for uncovered healthcare. But they also spend more than they make, fill housing, etc. Their economic benefit would be too complicated to generalize easily.

In pure economic terms, the elderly and the young are an economic cost, not a benefit. Each of those groups requires support, financial or productivity, from the working age population. In the case where the old spend more than they make, public finance allows them to do that - but only at the cost of productivity for the working age population. In a very dystopian sense, societies would be better off financially if the elderly either worked until they died or if they didn't exist at all. The young are needed because without them society can't continue. All this to say, we're not gonna send all the old folks to the gallows like Cuomo did in NY but each group, separately, is a huge cost to the working age population from a net perspective.