DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[DenBronco8]

Originally Posted by twister244

UGH.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...-go-ahead.html

How many signatures does he need to get it on the ballot?

[DUPio]

Originally Posted by twister244

UGH.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...-go-ahead.html

Please no. The housing market is ridiculous and has supply issues as it is.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DUPio

Please no. The housing market is ridiculous and has supply issues as it is.

That will be their undoing at the polls.

It's like reading an article's headline and not the article itself; the headline sounds sexy; the actual article smells of rot. You just need to educate the voters. The sad part is needing to spend money to defeat such a dumb proposal.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by twister244

UGH.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...-go-ahead.html

Yep. Time to start researching which Midwestern city I'm going to relocate to if this passes. Pittsburgh is looking appealing these days.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

That will be their undoing at the polls.

It's like reading an article's headline and not the article itself; the headline sounds sexy; the actual article smells of rot. You just need to educate the voters. The sad part is needing to spend money to defeat such a dumb proposal.

Thankfully, you'll have everyone in the entire homebuilding/buying supply chain throwing every spare dollar they have at defeating this.

[TakeFive]

Affordable Homes Good News

Although not city-focused the metro area can handle, actually benefit from a modest amount of 'sprawl.' Besides being only 4 miles south of DIA, it will be close to tons of jobs.

Developer begins work on housing project near DIA
Mar 2, 2018 By Ben Miller – Contributing Writer/DBJ

A Watkins-based water and wastewater services company said it's broken ground on a new housing development four miles south of Denver International Airport.

Pure Cycle Corp. (Nasdaq: PCYO) said it's begun the first phase of the Sky Ranch development, and will sell 506 lots to builders.

How much dinero are we talking about?

Pure Cycle said it owns 930 acres at Sky Ranch and added that the development could "accommodate up to 5,000 single family resident equivalent uses (“SFE’s”) in the entry level home market (around $300,000 for single family detached homes)."

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by twister244

UGH.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...-go-ahead.html

Anyone offering odds?

I give it a 60 % chance of passing. Just the pending ballot measure may take Denver off of Amazon's list. It would have the potential to greatly increase their cost.

[Agent Orange]

What's crazy about the current anti-growth mania is that the Denver metro has grown faster in the past (late 90s, 70s). Can anyone who's lived here a long time explain what's different this time?

Many metro areas are growing faster than we are: Austin, Raleigh, Houston, among others. In the 90s, Austin, Phoenix, and Boise all grew by over 45%. If things continue on a similar course to finish this decade, the Denver MSA will probably have grown by just over 20% (according to Wiki, the 2010-15 growth rate was only 10.65%). That's not extraordinary at all.

Let's look at the state's growth rate. According to Wikipedia, Colorado grew 11.5% between 2010 and 2017. Applying that growth rate to the end of the decade, we are looking at a 2020 Census count of 5.86 million and a 10 year growth rate of 16.4%. Let's compare that to other decades:

2000s: 16.9%
1990s: 30.6%
1980s: 14.0%
1970s: 30.9%

Assuming this current rate holds, the state will end up having grown sightly slower than the previous decade, back in the "golden age" before CO and Denver were supposedly "discovered". The rate is HALF as fast as the 90s and 70s. And only a little bit faster than the infamously sluggish 80s!

I often encounter a local perception that the rather shocking rise in home prices and lack of affordability is caused by all the "growth" and "transplants", yet when you look at Sunbelt metropoles (as well as Denver itself) that exploded in the 90s and early 2000s, those places had rather stable (and cheap) housing prices. Don't need to look at TX and NC either since CO grew tremendously in previous decades and housing was generally affordable compared to the coasts. It's not an issue of too much demand, it's a matter of lack of supply (and a host of systematic issues that I could speculate on but would be off topic).

So what is it that people are so up in arms about? Is it cost of living (cause this measure will ensure that COL only gets worse), is it road traffic? Crowded trails? Is it the fact that much of the development has been in more urban areas, therefore more "visible" than subdivisions on the plains?

[MountainRush]

Originally Posted by rds70

Melbourne:


Sydney:

I've never realized, but Melbourne's skyline kinda blows Sydney's away

Great pictures. Thanks for sharing!

[The Dirt]

FML - if it passes, it gives me one extra reason for moving out of the country. Australia is starting to look pretty appealing.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

What's crazy about the current anti-growth mania is that the Denver metro has grown faster in the past (late 90s, 70s). Can anyone who's lived here a long time explain what's different this time?

Many metro areas are growing faster than we are: Austin, Raleigh, Houston, among others. In the 90s, Austin, Phoenix, and Boise all grew by over 45%. If things continue on a similar course to finish this decade, the Denver MSA will probably have grown by just over 20% (according to Wiki, the 2010-15 growth rate was only 10.65%). That's not extraordinary at all.

Let's look at the state's growth rate. According to Wikipedia, Colorado grew 11.5% between 2010 and 2017. Applying that growth rate to the end of the decade, we are looking at a 2020 Census count of 5.86 million and a 10 year growth rate of 16.4%. Let's compare that to other decades:

2000s: 16.9%
1990s: 30.6%
1980s: 14.0%
1970s: 30.9%

Assuming this current rate holds, the state will end up having grown sightly slower than the previous decade, back in the "golden age" before CO and Denver were supposedly "discovered". The rate is HALF as fast as the 90s and 70s. And only a little bit faster than the infamously sluggish 80s!

I often encounter a local perception that the rather shocking rise in home prices and lack of affordability is caused by all the "growth" and "transplants", yet when you look at Sunbelt metropoles (as well as Denver itself) that exploded in the 90s and early 2000s, those places had rather stable (and cheap) housing prices. Don't need to look at TX and NC either since CO grew tremendously in previous decades and housing was generally affordable compared to the coasts. It's not an issue of too much demand, it's a matter of lack of supply (and a host of systematic issues that I could speculate on but would be off topic).

So what is it that people are so up in arms about? Is it cost of living (cause this measure will ensure that COL only gets worse), is it road traffic? Crowded trails? Is it the fact that much of the development has been in more urban areas, therefore more "visible" than subdivisions on the plains?

Good factual summary, and good questions. For long-time residents in the core city, there is, as you note, one key difference between the current decades and prior growth spurts.

Core Denver circa 1990 felt practically abandoned. The 1990 population was 468,000 after decades of decline. Housing was ridiculously cheap (how does 85K for a nice Washing Park Bungalow sound, and half that for similar house in "undesirable" neighborhoods like LoHi or Uptown). During the the late 80s recession cheap condos in Aurora could be had for $25K.

Much of the growth since 2000 and particularly since 2010 has focused on the core city with population rising by about 50% since 1990. The core city is (and feels) MUCH more crowded than it did.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

That will be their undoing at the polls.

I’m not so sure. I talk to random strangers about this topic almost daily (it’s almost inevitable that the topic of growth gets brought up any time you’re stuck in traffic in a Lyft/Uber). It seems most people in this region truly are “sick and tired of all this growth.” The whole town seems to be really freaked out about it. The more ignorant among us locals seem to think that the development itself is causing all the population growth and not the other way around. A common sentiment I keep encountering is that “these greedy developers are coming in here and causing all this growth.” I’m constantly hearing friends, family, coworkers and strangers alike talk about what “they” should do about it. “They gotta do something to stop all this growth.” It’s as if most people don’t think of population growth as something that organically occurs. They seem to think it’s something the powers at be are orchestrating.

Another common sentiment I keep encountering is that all these people are moving here for the pot. I try to explain that it’s the economy. The local economy is booming; jobs are being created like crazy; and, in fact, throughout most of this boom Colorado has had the lowest unemployment rate in the country. That’s what’s driving the growth. Every time the economy booms, there’s growth. That’s just the way it works. It’s happened before and it will happen again (unless this measure passes).

I’m really terrified this thing will pass. I’m betting it will. These days people vote with their hearts – not their brains. How often do you actually spend time in the Front Range, TakeFive? Have you actually felt/experienced the anti-growth hysteria that’s prevalent here?

Speaking of anti-growth hysteria – I wonder – is the same thing taking place in Austin? Seattle? If not, why not? What’s wrong with Colorado?

[CastleScott]

Speaking of anti-growth hysteria – I wonder – is the same thing taking place in Austin? Seattle? If not, why not? What’s wrong with Colorado?

This is definitely happening here in Sacramento-people here deeply resent folks moving in here from the Bay Area and causing local housing costs to go up hugely plus cause more traffic, crime, homeless problems and the like. Btw before I left the metro Denver area in April 2015 I remember hearing a lot of anti-growth rhetoric back then but I'm sure now its off the charts.

[corey]

In the 80’s suburbanites wouldn’t go downtown because it was dead after 5 pm and there was a boogaboo about it being dangerous. Every one wished downtown to be “fixed up.” Now that there has been a tremendous amount of investment in downtown and it is much nicer and livelier they complain that development is out of control because it takes them longer to drive past on I-25 than it used to. These people still wouldn’t take the train downtown and spend a day walking around enjoying the good side of the new development. When the economy is bad people wish for a boom and when the economy is booming they wish for a recession (except in their own field of course).

[twister244]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

FML - if it passes, it gives me one extra reason for moving out of the country. Australia is starting to look pretty appealing.

Yeah.... I would really like to stay in Denver long-term, but if this POS passes, it will really give me serious consideration for relocating somewhere else at some point. I would like to buy something at some point, and it will become next to impossible if this passes.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

What's crazy about the current anti-growth mania is that the Denver metro has grown faster in the past (late 90s, 70s). Can anyone who's lived here a long time explain what's different this time?

CherryCreek... summarized it well. I'll just add a little clarification...

The growth in the 1970's was sprawl-dominated with lots of 'starter-home' neighborhoods which then drove the move-up market segment. Sprawl was/is generally cheaper since there's lots of land at low prices (historically). The 1st half of the 1980's was the oil & gas boom and O&G people are more city people. In Denver this was especially true since a lot of the O&G money was Canadian and Canada has alway reflected more its Euro roots with much more of a city focus than the auto-driven growth in the States. Early 80's is when all of Denver's tallest were built. It was less a 9-5 downtown so long as the O&G crowd was in town. They cleared out starting the end of 1986 and left downtown with the proverbial 'see-through' buildings ie no drapes or window coverings. The 1990's saw growth take advantage of low downtown rents.

Another way to understand Denver and answer your other questions is to contrast Denver with the Great SW, ie Texas and Phoenix. Sand-dirt has alway been dirt cheap so sprawl was a natural. Plus, both Texas and Arizona experienced lots of cross border immigration which helped to lower labor costs for construction (and lots of stuff).

Phoenix (and presumably Dallas/Houston) is not only sprawling but it's also multi-nodal. Downtown Phx has your gov't buildings and traditional banks, accounting etc. But Scottsdale became the Real Financial District. SE suburbs became the place for tech hardware (think chips) and peaked at over a 100,000 direct jobs; it's now about half of that but electronics has filled in the slack. SW Phoenix is for warehouse/distristribution facilities; it's where Amazon built their 1.2 million Sq Ft flagship facility. Sun City, in the NW metro, is the heart of retirees and the rest is general residential. The multi-nodal character is what allowed Phoenix to become the 12th largest MSA yet TomTom rates it 47th (worst) for congestion.

With Denver the 'sprawl' has mostly an I-25 focus. Sure it sprawled out but E-470, for example, grew its traffic at a snails pace. In Phoenix, all the 'loop' freeways are 8 lanes and busy.

The current boom has been mostly center-city focused where land is more expensive and gotten even more-so along with much higher construction costs than building normal sprawling stick-frame houses or condos/apartments. Add in the total lack of affordable 'starter home' construction and you end up with the mess you've got.

[Denver Dweller]

https://businessden.com/2018/02/26/m...669#newsletter

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I’m not so sure. I talk to random strangers about this topic almost daily (it’s almost inevitable that the topic of growth gets brought up any time you’re stuck in traffic in a Lyft/Uber). It seems most people in this region truly are “sick and tired of all this growth.” The whole town seems to be really freaked out about it. The more ignorant among us locals seem to think that the development itself is causing all the population growth and not the other way around. A common sentiment I keep encountering is that “these greedy developers are coming in here and causing all this growth.” I’m constantly hearing friends, family, coworkers and strangers alike talk about what “they” should do about it. “They gotta do something to stop all this growth.” It’s as if most people don’t think of population growth as something that organically occurs. They seem to think it’s something the powers at be are orchestrating.

Another common sentiment I keep encountering is that all these people are moving here for the pot. I try to explain that it’s the economy. The local economy is booming; jobs are being created like crazy; and, in fact, throughout most of this boom Colorado has had the lowest unemployment rate in the country. That’s what’s driving the growth. Every time the economy booms, there’s growth. That’s just the way it works. It’s happened before and it will happen again (unless this measure passes).

I’m really terrified this thing will pass. I’m betting it will. These days people vote with their hearts – not their brains. How often do you actually spend time in the Front Range, TakeFive? Have you actually felt/experienced the anti-growth hysteria that’s prevalent here?

Speaking of anti-growth hysteria – I wonder – is the same thing taking place in Austin? Seattle? If not, why not? What’s wrong with Colorado?

Not really in Seattle. We went through growth management in King County 30 years ago (central half of the metro) and statewide 25 years ago or so. The outcome was a focus on infill more than sprawl, which has been confirmed through public votes since then. Generally the electorate understands that growth will happen, and wants to accommodate it.

That said, we have our own problems, like piling fees onto developments within Seattle, a key part or skyrocketing housing prices. And we only made sprawl slower and more orderly.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Good factual summary, and good questions. For long-time residents in the core city, there is, as you note, one key difference between the current decades and prior growth spurts.

Core Denver circa 1990 felt practically abandoned. The 1990 population was 468,000 after decades of decline. Housing was ridiculously cheap (how does 85K for a nice Washing Park Bungalow sound, and half that for similar house in "undesirable" neighborhoods like LoHi or Uptown). During the the late 80s recession cheap condos in Aurora could be had for $25K.

Much of the growth since 2000 and particularly since 2010 has focused on the core city with population rising by about 50% since 1990. The core city is (and feels) MUCH more crowded than it did.

Sounds a lot like my hometown of Tulsa circa 2010. Even now real estate is significantly less than Denver. I look at regional cities like Omaha, Des Moines, Oklahoma City, even larger cities like Kansas City and it’s similar. I wonder if these are the next boom cities similar to how Denver was in the 90’s.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

These days people vote with their hearts – not their brains. How often do you actually spend time in the Front Range, TakeFive? Have you actually felt/experienced the anti-growth hysteria that’s prevalent here?

Sam... I really rely on you and wong to give me the straight poop.

Your anecdotal feedback is fascinating. I do understand that people's votes aren't necessarily rational but it does surprise me they wouldn't easily see the risk of limiting supply.

I figured they simply needed to convince the voters that even if the objective was good they had picked the wrong means of accomplishing it... but you've convinced me that may not be so simple.