DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Agent Orange]

Huh, interesting audience to choose to celebrate the death of a laudable bill that would have done a lot to make Colorado urbanism stronger. Did you think this was Neighborhood Character Page?

[mishko27]

Yeah, wrong crowd buddy. Don't join a crowd of YIMBYs with this BANANA 🞵🞵🞵🞵

[twalm]

Luckily Polis sees this as a goal of his term and not just this session. He stated on CPR that he will keep pushing on this regardless if this first attempt dies.

https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/28/jared-polis-property-tax-increases-land-use-bill/

[mr1138]

I was excited when the House put ADUs and density near transit back into the bill, and I was really hoping the Senate would at least give that version of the bill a vote. It was extremely disappointing to watch it sit on their docket for 3 days and never brought up for a vote.

But in retrospect, I now think the House probably knew full well they didn't have the right Senate, and may have actually intended to kill the Senate's version of the bill by putting the land use premptions back in - essentially punting the discussion until a future session. While I'm glad that they seem to be queueing this up for another push, I can't help but wonder - will they actually take this up again during an election year?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Darius C

I am glad to hear that the land use code proposed by Gov. Polis is going nowhere:

https://www.denver7.com/news/politics/sw...ies-in-last-hours-of-legislative-session

A less heavy-handed proposal could have a chance in the next legislative session.

If the Mayor of Denver along with city council President say it's wrong-headed than that's good enough for me.

BUT others can celebrate the State of Washington:

Washington governor signs law allowing duplexes, fourplexes
May 8, 2023 by Ed Komenda - AP

The law requires cities with populations between 25,000 and 75,000 to allow duplexes in all residential areas. Any area within a half-mile of a major transit stop, park or school would have to allow fourplexes. The building of fourplexes would be allowed anywhere if one unit meets affordable housing requirements.

In cities of over 75,000 people, all residential areas must allow fourplexes. Areas near major transit, parks or schools have to allow six-plexes, which would be allowed anywhere if two of the units are affordable.

[TakeFive]

Fantasies are Fun

I'm not categorically against up-zoning but it's a great example of liberal "feel good" changes that will accomplish very little if anything.

You want affordability, Portland and San Francisco are on the right path. Instead of "Law and Order" they've chosen disorder and chaos. Let the Good Guys "get out of town while the gettin' is good"

Life is what happens while your making other plans

New York and California lost over $90 billion in income to low-tax states during Covid

Downtown Portland's resemblance to a dead mall

Store closures are hitting Downtown San Francisco as office vacancies and fears of crime are on the rise. Here's the full list of retailers pulling out of the city's downtown neighborhood.

Your Choice should you choose to play

is should you follow the philosophers and the theoretical or simply "Follow the Money." Businesses vote with their feet. Buh Bye!

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...I'm not categorically against up-zoning but it's a great example of liberal "feel good" changes that will accomplish very little if anything...

Why do folks feel the need to make that statement as if they have decades of data supporting an opinion like that? The kind of residential zoning flexibility hasn't been around for 70+ years, since the pre-war era - especially what Washington state has done. Nobody who is alive now really has any clue how this works or what will happen.

What we do know is that when zoning wasn't so controlled by local government regulations our neighborhoods developed to meet many more needs than current planning comes close to.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Why do folks feel the need to make that statement as if they have decades of data supporting an opinion like that? The kind of residential zoning flexibility hasn't been around for 70+ years, since the pre-war era - especially what Washington state has done. Nobody who is alive now really has any clue how this works or what will happen.

What we do know is that when zoning wasn't so controlled by local government regulations our neighborhoods developed to meet many more needs than current planning comes close to.

It was soooo tiring listening to the opposition trot out this argument again, and again, and again. And citing California's SB 9 as if it offers some kind of evidence that upzoning doesn't work. That law went into effect on January 1, 2022 - not even 1.5 years ago.

Just the planning and permit approval process for an infill project can take 2-3 years. Plus, the developers who will do these kinds of projects have to start shopping for land first. It wouldn't have made any sense for developers to be buying up land before the law was passed and with no guarantee of future development potential. In fact - it probably isn't too big of a stretch to say that some of the small-scale developers who will do this kind of infill may not even be in business yet. There are likely investors out there right now who are still in the very early stages of formulating their business plans and watching real estate trends.

I would guess it will take at least 5-10 years to see even preliminary data that would indicate whether the new law is working. We certainly can't declare it a "failure" after less than 2 years. Though given this reality - perhaps "More Housing Now!" wasn't the best hyperbolic political slogan to use.

What we do know about California's new laws (as was cited during one of the recent public hearings) is that they have seen a ten-fold increase in applications for ADUs. This makes sense as these tend to be homeowner-initiated applications for properties they already own, so they can gear up much more quickly than the developers who do infill. It also shows just how much interest is out there to already see such a steep uptick in permit applications.

[TakeFive]

It goes to my libertarian side

Originally Posted by laniroj

Why do folks feel the need to make that statement as if they have decades of data supporting an opinion like that? The kind of residential zoning flexibility hasn't been around for 70+ years, since the pre-war era - especially what Washington state has done. Nobody who is alive now really has any clue how this works or what will happen.

What we do know is that when zoning wasn't so controlled by local government regulations our neighborhoods developed to meet many more needs than current planning comes close to.

I'm not a fan of NANNY Government. At the Federal level it's more typically liberals but at the state level it can be either. Just look at all the idiotic laws being passed in Red States. Too many people with too much power want to tell others what to believe and what they must do to satisfy those in power.

Bottom Line is I don't like the State dictating to municipalities because a small group of legislators think they know what is best for everybody else. The other thing is that there is a Big difference between The City of Denver and suburban communities.

But above all else any supposed improvements will only be at the margins. There's other things that are much more important for attaining affordability. What about property taxes for example? They handed our a few nickels to make everybody feel better. So typical of Blue States.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Just the planning and permit approval process for an infill project can take 2-3 years. Plus, the developers who will do these kinds of projects have to start shopping for land first. It wouldn't have made any sense for developers to be buying up land before the law was passed and with no guarantee of future development potential. In fact - it probably isn't too big of a stretch to say that some of the small-scale developers who will do this kind of infill may not even be in business yet. There are likely investors out there right now who are still in the very early stages of formulating their business plans and watching real estate trends.

With respect to "infill" within Denver, there's plenty of land still available but none of the developers so far are interested in duplexes or fourplexes; they all want to build higher density units like 5 stories and up. I 'may' have read that Fox Park may include some missing middle housing.

With respect to the suburbs I'm not sure how many people are even aware of what is going on since we don't focus on it and in many cases you need to be 'in the business' to know.

Construction of Colorado’s Largest Net-Zero-Ready Affordable Housing Development Underway
May 8, 2023 - Mile High CRE


Willoughby Corner will ultimately bring 400 new rentals and for sale affordable homes to Lafayette in 2024.

102 Townhomes Available for Rent in Castle Rock
May 2, 2023 - Mile High CRE


Canvas at Castle Rock, courtesy of Watermark Companies

Most suburban communities have trended to more mixed-use, mixed-density projects. Lone Tree obviously; out by DIA absolutely; Westminster starting soon; Commerce City you bet. Just b/c you're not aware of it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[TakeFive]

New Construction In Denver



1894 So Williams St - Bargain priced for $715,000.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mr1138

...In fact - it probably isn't too big of a stretch to say that some of the small-scale developers who will do this kind of infill may not even be in business yet. There are likely investors out there right now who are still in the very early stages of formulating their business plans and watching real estate trends...

...What we do know about California's new laws (as was cited during one of the recent public hearings) is that they have seen a ten-fold increase in applications for ADUs. This makes sense as these tend to be homeowner-initiated applications for properties they already own, so they can gear up much more quickly than the developers who do infill. It also shows just how much interest is out there to already see such a steep uptick in permit applications.

^You're right on the money. This is exactly the intent of these zoning laws. Open up small scale development to people on the block. The current industry requires significant expertise, capital, and patience alongside a whole lotta risk. Buying a single family home and turning it into a duplex or fourplex is something many folks can do on their own, much like it was 100+ years ago. This opens the door to attainable/incremental competition, supply, and housing diversity. Back then, you didn't see these huge projects or giant community developments. Instead, you saw a land developer plat a couple blocks at a time and then sell lots individually to many small mom and pops - thus the range of development we saw...different strokes for different folks. Everyone sees the world differently, which is a great thing, but our planning and zoning regulations only allow for an extremely limited and rigid view of things.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It goes to my libertarian side


I'm not a fan of NANNY Government. At the Federal level it's more typically liberals but at the state level it can be either. Just look at all the idiotic laws being passed in Red States. Too many people with too much power want to tell others what to believe and what they must do to satisfy those in power.

Bottom Line is I don't like the State dictating to municipalities because a small group of legislators think they know what is best for everybody else. The other thing is that there is a Big difference between The City of Denver and suburban communities.

But above all else any supposed improvements will only be at the margins. There's other things that are much more important for attaining affordability. What about property taxes for example? They handed our a few nickels to make everybody feel better. So typical of Blue States.

If you lean libertarian, as I do (I'm like a toppled Tower of Pisa in that regard), then what about property rights? Zoning has crushed property rights. Regulation has crushed property rights. Local control (emphasis on control) is the antithesis of libertarian as pertains zoning/regulation.

I'm in total agreement with you regarding the approach the legislature is taking, but the end result is closer to a libertarian outcome than if that approach were not taken. The ends justify the means, in this case.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by laniroj

^You're right on the money. This is exactly the intent of these zoning laws. Open up small scale development to people on the block. The current industry requires significant expertise, capital, and patience alongside a whole lotta risk. Buying a single family home and turning it into a duplex or fourplex is something many folks can do on their own, much like it was 100+ years ago. This opens the door to attainable/incremental competition, supply, and housing diversity. Back then, you didn't see these huge projects or giant community developments. Instead, you saw a land developer plat a couple blocks at a time and then sell lots individually to many small mom and pops - thus the range of development we saw...different strokes for different folks. Everyone sees the world differently, which is a great thing, but our planning and zoning regulations only allow for an extremely limited and rigid view of things.

That certainly is the hope! This article is an old favorite of mine on this topic, though I'm sure many on this forum are already familiar with these ideas. Incremental growth in existing neighborhoods is a fundamentally different way of planning than what is intended under strict single-family zoning. I think there's a good argument that developments should always be approved with zoning for slightly more density than what the developer intends to build, so the proper zoning is already in place when the first lifespan of the houses begins to reach its end. Ripping the band-aid off statewide (so to speak) actually seems like a good idea to me. In fact, it would probably take development pressure off of more suburban locales in the short term.

I do think that it may be a bit optimistic to think that individual homeowners can build a duplex or fourplex - doing so takes quite a bit of capital, not to mention finding somewhere else to live in the meantime, so realistically it would still take some pretty deep pockets. But ADUs on the other hand - of course this is something that many individual homeowners can and will do! Plenty of people remodel their homes and add square footage all the time using their own savings or equity, so it makes perfect sense they would start adding ADUs if allowed to do so.

But even if individual homeowners can't always build townhomes themselves, I'm guessing we're still talking about very different developers than the Lennars and the Mertiage Homes' of the world - many of whom may not have even considered going into business until they learned of the new legislation. Not that those big companies couldn't pivot too - but it would be a major turn for their business models to start buying up land in existing neighborhoods, going through a new and different planning process, and then producing fewer homes at each project site. That kind of change in business model would take time, and is also subject to real estate and interest rate cycles.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

ADUs are like Sprinter vans. Best for trust fund millennials. Pretty small market.

[UrbanT]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

ADUs are like Sprinter vans. Best for trust fund millennials. Pretty small market.

Currently they are a small market because they are not zoned for in 70% of the city. Also, you spelled "boomer's with money" wrong.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With respect to "infill" within Denver, there's plenty of land still available but none of the developers so far are interested in duplexes or fourplexes; they all want to build higher density units like 5 stories and up. I 'may' have read that Fox Park may include some missing middle housing.

What an odd argument. In an area like Denver, developers will build the highest and best use. In areas that allow density, when more than a single house lot is available they won't build four townhouses. That sort of project will only proliferate when they're allowed on typical SFR sites.

As for ADUs, Seattle permitted nearly 1,000 last year, also more than 10x the typical old rate. It's a deep market.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

^You're right on the money. This is exactly the intent of these zoning laws. Open up small scale development to people on the block. The current industry requires significant expertise, capital, and patience alongside a whole lotta risk.

As previously stated I'm not against "four-plex" zoning. Where we would disagree is who should determine that, the state or the municipality.

I was mildly surprised the City (mayor and city council) were against the state plan..... but maybe I shouldn't have been?

The City has poured blood, sweat and tears into their neighborhood/area plans taking up to three years to complete. While 4-plex zoning wouldn't be that disruptive, I assume it's the whole notion of giving up the ability to decide what is best for your own residents.

So I'll wait for the city to decide when this should happen.

Note of caution

I can see this issue as potentially important for the next elections in 2024. Such land use issues are not easily defined by Republican versus Democrat or even liberal versus conservative.

[mhays]

Land use codes are much like codes for pollution, 🞵🞵🞵 control, and other things....piecemeal doesn't work very well on a systematic level. It needs to be at the state level at minimum.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Land use codes are much like codes for pollution, 🞵🞵🞵 control, and other things....piecemeal doesn't work very well on a systematic level. It needs to be at the state level at minimum.

Can I assume you prefer representative government as opposed to totalitarianism? Things can go against what you want and even stuff passed by a legislative body can be undone and changed.

Interesting observation

The conservative talkers that I listen to before I nod off think that Biden will change his mind about running in 2024 before the end of the year. I wouldn't disagree but only time will tell. In any case I don't have a good feeling about the 2024 elections.