Denver Four Seasons Hotel & Private Residences (Part 2)

[The Dirt]

To be fair, citycenter was probably trying to blow off some steam because someone pissed him off. We all know the best place for a serious ideological discussion is not in an online forum about skyscrapers. We were just silly enough to bite.

[Strange Meat]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Sorry, but I've seen way too many upper management types get away with everything, flush a successful company down the toilet, take credit for someone else's work, blame their failures on their employees, AND get a golden parachute on their way out.

You've got to be kidding me if you think that the majority of the wealthy got there through hard HONEST work. These are the people that squash entrepreneurialism and innovation, and they get bonuses and hefty severance packages for it. I see it every day.

The truth is, we see things the same way. We both think that people who are smart, talented, and hard working should get paid more than those who are not. However, where we differ is that I don't think that all poor people are necessarily stupid, talentless, and lazy. There's plenty of rich stupid, talentless, lazy people. Both groups are responsible for giving birth to smart kids and stupid kids, except that stupid rich kids end up running companies into the ground, while the smart poor kids work extremely hard to climb the economic ladder, and only the most lucky have the chance to do what the stupid rich kids had handed down to them. So, why are we punishing smart people for their parents' mistakes, and why are rewarding stupid people for their parents' success? That kind of system breeds inefficiency and inequality of the wost kind. Do you know how I know? It's because it's already been tried, and it's called feudalism. Look it up - it really sucks.

Okay, my last point. Yes, I think that dumb people deserve what they get. But, I don't want to have to live in a world where the poor are so desperate that I have to live in a gated community, have armed guards, and send my kids to exclusive private schools just so that I don't robbed, killed, or kidnapped. This is what happens when the middle class disappears and all you have are the super poor and the super rich. Yes, these places are capitalist countries, and they aren't all that pleasant even for the rich. You can't have a functioning system where the poor don't have a decent standard of living, and the rich end up spending all their wealth on maintaining a security perimeter around their vast estates and paying off the local police and rigging the judicial system in their favor.

Rant off.

Very good post.

One must look at the EXTREME difficulty that exists in this country (moreso perhaps than other western nations) in climbing the economic ladder. Furthermore, as you pointed out, we have the most ridiculous income gap here between higher level and lower level workers. It always blows my mind when people just sort of assume that everyone in the United States is given the same circumstances, and the same opportunity to make something of themselves. It's very clear that these people have a very, very skewed perception of reality, or no perception of it at all.

[Ilsaz]

While a skyscraper forum is not the best place for a typical web forum argument, I think that citizens of a city have a right to speak out about how their city is developed. That is why we have zoning boards and elect representatives to the city council.

I think there is a lot governments can do to spur development for middle-income units and Denver could do a lot more, in my opinion.

While I agree with Pizzuti about 4S's decision to price its units so high that most can't afford them, I want to mention that the nearby unit Spire — which was recently topped off — does offer relatively affordable units and I think the developers there are in line for kudos for that.

As someone sympathetic with the vision of a downtown for everyone and not just the rich, I think there is a place for high-end development. I just want to see downtown embrace a greater array of incomes and cultures.

Peace and love,
Matthew

[DENrising]

She is sweet and so sexy, can't wait to get down there next week to see it.

[ski82]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Sorry, but I've seen way too many upper management types get away with everything, flush a successful company down the toilet, take credit for someone else's work, blame their failures on their employees, AND get a golden parachute on their way out.

You've got to be kidding me if you think that the majority of the wealthy got there through hard HONEST work. These are the people that squash entrepreneurialism and innovation, and they get bonuses and hefty severance packages for it. I see it every day.

The truth is, we see things the same way. We both think that people who are smart, talented, and hard working should get paid more than those who are not. However, where we differ is that I don't think that all poor people are necessarily stupid, talentless, and lazy. There's plenty of rich stupid, talentless, lazy people. Both groups are responsible for giving birth to smart kids and stupid kids, except that stupid rich kids end up running companies into the ground, while the smart poor kids work extremely hard to climb the economic ladder, and only the most lucky have the chance to do what the stupid rich kids had handed down to them. So, why are we punishing smart people for their parents' mistakes, and why are rewarding stupid people for their parents' success? That kind of system breeds inefficiency and inequality of the wost kind. Do you know how I know? It's because it's already been tried, and it's called feudalism. Look it up - it really sucks.

Okay, my last point. Yes, I think that dumb people deserve what they get. But, I don't want to have to live in a world where the poor are so desperate that I have to live in a gated community, have armed guards, and send my kids to exclusive private schools just so that I don't robbed, killed, or kidnapped. This is what happens when the middle class disappears and all you have are the super poor and the super rich. Yes, these places are capitalist countries, and they aren't all that pleasant even for the rich. You can't have a functioning system where the poor don't have a decent standard of living, and the rich end up spending all their wealth on maintaining a security perimeter around their vast estates and paying off the local police and rigging the judicial system in their favor.

Rant off.

That world only exists in countries far less developed than the USA and other fully developed economies. And I also think your perception of the wealthy is off. While the Madoffs of the world might get all the headlines, most wealthy people are HONEST and to think that dishonesty is a trait of the wealthy is reckless and a scary generalization to make. For every corporate big wig that takes huge bonuses and tries to “squash entrepreneurialism and innovation” (which is another mis-generalization) there are a dozen small-medium sized business owners that have done very well for themselves and their families.

The economic mobility issue is another that can be easily misrepresented. While mobility levels have remained fairly level over the past few decades, it’s interesting to hear that race and gender plays less of a role in mobility than it did 20 years ago. Education plays more of a role. I can only hope this trend continues. What is also interesting is that a majority of people, across all income levels, think the government does more to hurt mobility than help. These stats can be found at the Economic Mobility Project website. Economicmobility.org. I would be interested in to see the mobility levels of people who think it is the government’s role to improve mobility vs. those who don’t think it has a role.

The US is a country where people can and do use the economic and social resources of their parents and relatives. While this creates a bunch of whiny overprivledged SOB’s, it also creates a great way to preserve wealth and a great motivation to achieve wealth. Who wouldn’t set their family up for life if they could/ And if you’re like me, the whiny trust funders will someday get what they deserve when they realize their lives are unbalanced and they have never been happy. But again, most people aren’t like that. And comparing the modern inheritance of our parents circumstances to feudalism really just ignores the most basic tenant of the medieval hierarchy, controlling people through the control of land. Even if you extend the concept to all resources, it still doesn’t change fundamental the fact that the poorest today have the right to own things, whereas that wasn’t the case for the serfs.

While other countries probably have more mobility based on percentages. I think you would be hard pressed to find somewhere that combines opportunity, ease of competitiveness, and upside potential that we enjoy.

[Fidel Castrobot]

I just want to see downtown embrace a greater array of incomes and cultures.

Ok. So how does something like this happen? How do we convince a developer to come in and build a skyscraper and take a loss because thier units are underpriced? Do we use tax money? Would that be fair given the fact that there is no NEED to live downtown. The metro area has HUGE amounts of affordable housing.

I for one have never been rich. I am white, please forgive me for that one but I cant help it.

I'm sorry to pound this into the ground but when an idealogical conversation is masked in "Urban fairness" I feel it has a place here.

Just remember, a government that feeds and clothes and houses you, can also leave you starving, naked, and homeless.

[cadetwhite]

When urban living becomes more common place, the prices for an average unit will go down. This is why it is cheaper to live in suburbia now days - there is an ample supply of it.

As new urbanism takes hold, we'll see more and more projects like the spire (as well as less expensive rentals) that attempt to make urban living commonplace again.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by Fidel Castrobot

I just want to see downtown embrace a greater array of incomes and cultures.

Ok. So how does something like this happen? How do we convince a developer to come in and build a skyscraper and take a loss because thier units are underpriced? Do we use tax money? Would that be fair given the fact that there is no NEED to live downtown. The metro area has HUGE amounts of affordable housing.

I for one have never been rich. I am white, please forgive me for that one but I cant help it.

I'm sorry to pound this into the ground but when an idealogical conversation is masked in "Urban fairness" I feel it has a place here.

Just remember, a government that feeds and clothes and houses you, can also leave you starving, naked, and homeless.

I’m curious how a rather innocuous comment on a simple desire to see more diversity and social vitality within the city can be interpreted as promoting a Marxist idealogy. It’s like I’m watching Fox News or something.

[bcp]

cadetwhite there is much more that goes into higher prices in the center than just supply....

- land costs are much higher
- construction costs are higher
- the scale tends to be smaller which adds to cost
- financing construction for urban / multi-family is more costly
- gov't guarantees on multi-family purchases are more challenging than single-family so it makes selling harder, which increases carrying costs

[cadetwhite]

Yeah, I understand that. We've subsidized the entire suburban system to make it work. There was a day when it was much more economical to live in urban areas and I think that some day we will see that again.

[bcp]

let's hope!


bcp

[Fidel Castrobot]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

I’m curious how a rather innocuous comment on a simple desire to see more diversity and social vitality within the city can be interpreted as promoting a Marxist idealogy. It’s like I’m watching Fox News or something.

It's not that I disagree with that desire man, or that I think you are promoting a Marxist idealogy. It seems to me that downtowns have typically been out of reach in general for alot of the population. Then again so is Cherry Creek.... I live in Cap hill which is what? One mile from downtown? I in no way feel that I DESERVE to live in a downtown highrise building. Cap hill, Baker, 5 points, city park, uptown ... All of these areas are pretty dang diverse (for Denver, which really isn't all that diverse of a city comparativly), and they are all within a mile or 2 of downtown. Its not like downtown has a wall around it and only its inhabitants occupy it.

Basically all Im getting at here is that I hate these vague statements like "a simple desire to see more diversity and social vitality within the city" and no IDEAS on how to make that happen. And when I DO see an idea it almost ALWAYS includes some sort of wealth redistribution.

So here, I'll throw an IDEA out there for ya: A privately funded business or group of businesses founded by urban enthusiests that use a portion of their profits volentarily to subsibize moderatly priced housing downtown, thus creating a larger customer pool for their businesses to share.

It's far past time to turn those bleeding hearts into bloody hands

[Pizzuti]

Originally Posted by Fidel Castrobot

Just remember, a government that feeds and clothes and houses you, can also leave you starving, naked, and homeless.

Uh, a totally moot point. Just as easily can a market that feeds and clothes and houses you can leave you starving, naked and homeless.

Maybe it's best to live with just a little bit of both.

Originally Posted by Fidel Castrobot

Basically all Im getting at here is that I hate these vague statements like "a simple desire to see more diversity and social vitality within the city" and no IDEAS on how to make that happen. And when I DO see an idea it almost ALWAYS includes some sort of wealth redistribution.

How about a city ordinance that requires developers to make just ten percent of their residential units affordable to middle or low-income people. If they don't want to have any affordable units in their development, they can pay the city a fee to become exempt, which will go into a city fund to develop public housing.

Oh, hey, I have great news about that suggestion! And if something with such a little impact on the wealthy as that counts as "wealth redistribution," then all I can say is, it seems that wealth redistribution is, in many cases, the pragmatic thing and the morally and ethically correct thing to do.

[Giovoni]

For what it's worth... and probably no one will believe/appreciate my experiences anyway.... but since I got out of medical school and through residency I've NEVER, not once seen someone be fired from the various positions around me (support, secretary, admin, even other drs) that shouldn't have been fired MONTHS or YEARS earlier. The system is set up so that for the most part (and 100% of the time from my 8 years of watching) you have to do something truly egregious before you're fired. Do unfair things happen.. yup. But not everyone who has something unfair happen decides that his productive life is over and abandons everything that was going for him before.. some actually continue to build toward their success.

And now.. with everyone whining about the job market and fearing being unemployed every dealing I've had in Orlando has been with service field employees doing LESS not more. Waiters have to be asked 4 times for a drink.. only to bring it with the check.. that they then walk by 3 times seeing the credit card ready for them to be picked up. From my experience in FL unemployment wouldn't truly reflect those who actually deserve to be working until it's at around 20%. One of the truly under appreciated luxuries of this country is the huge abundance of jobs for nincompoops who would be unemployable in any other country in their present level of training or education. These are those who think they should get rich working 40 hours a week and resent those who do more and get more, and then paint everyone with more success as evil conspirators who want to stand on their backs (this of course while they overwhelmingly, mind-bogglingly vote GOP year after year) I don't feel one second of sympathy for these people.

Are there rich lazy stupid jerks.. you bet... and they are rich and so are also powerful .. so they have the means to do much more damage then the poor stupid jerks who in my estimation outnumber the rich ones about 100 to 1.

To get back to Denver though, all of us, me included REALLY want more shopping downtown.. and shopping that includes more than cheap tourist crap. (where poor stupid jerks tend to shop btw) If we're going to get more shopping that doesn't include cheap junk, we should really be willing to accept the more affluent coming into downtown. Our chances for lots of affordable options downtown left the station with DURA scraping every old building in town in previous decades. We'll have cheap housing downtown again in 40 or 50 years (when Spire and other downtown buildings get older and less hip) assuming the poor stupid lazy jerks don't elect more rich stupid lazy jerks to run Denver's urban policy the same way DURA did.

I agree that the comment about liberalism was totally uncalled for and inappropriate.. but not that surprising.

[Ilsaz]

That's a good idea.

I take exception to the notion that for there to be more affordable development downtown that developers have to take a loss or taxpayers somehow need to subsidize lower-income housing.

I do not for a second believe that downtown and urban, high-rise is for everyone. But as an advocate for the new urbanism, I think it is critical that we rethink the way we use our land. People should live close to where they work and where they shop. This is why density is good. My umbrage is that it isn't just the upper incomes that should enjoy this.

It is true that I am a socialist — though I prefer the term collectivist. I am also an environmentalist and think it is healthy for the planet for people to live close to where they work. And a large portion of the service employees who work downtown are not able to afford to live nearby.

I am OK with luxury skyscrapers. But I think it could be economical for developers to build dense single-bedroom units. An obstacle to this is parking requirements. But the tide is turning against the automobile. Soon our cities will be designed for people and bicycles, and not bloody cars.

Downtown isn't for everybody. I have two dogs and rather like the yard I have. But for young, single professional people, I think there is a need for some newer developments for them; too many are stuck in aging and inefficient units in Capitol Hill.

Peace and love,
M.

[Giovoni]

Originally Posted by Ilsaz

That's a good idea.

I take exception to the notion that for there to be more affordable development downtown that developers have to take a loss or taxpayers somehow need to subsidize lower-income housing.

I do not for a second believe that downtown and urban, high-rise is for everyone. But as an advocate for the new urbanism, I think it is critical that we rethink the way we use our land. People should live close to where they work and where they shop. This is why density is good. My umbrage is that it isn't just the upper incomes that should enjoy this.

It is true that I am a socialist — though I prefer the term collectivist. I am also an environmentalist and think it is healthy for the planet for people to live close to where they work. And a large portion of the service employees who work downtown are not able to afford to live nearby.

I am OK with luxury skyscrapers. But I think it could be economical for developers to build dense single-bedroom units. An obstacle to this is parking requirements. But the tide is turning against the automobile. Soon our cities will be designed for people and bicycles, and not bloody cars.

Downtown isn't for everybody. I have two dogs and rather like the yard I have. But for young, single professional people, I think there is a need for some newer developments for them; too many are stuck in aging and inefficient units in Capitol Hill.

Peace and love,
M.

Find 300 million people who work as hard as I do and as efficiently as I've tried to learn how to do and I'll gladly start a communist country somewhere (for ONE generation). You can maybe find 50 million here in the US. Not sure where you'll find the other 250.

Be the hardest working most intelligent person in a liberal arts college class, have the reputation of being that person. Then be in a few group projects when before you start the instructor lets everyone know that you're all getting the same grade. See what happens to you as the one who HAS to get the A to get into medical school and watch your support melt away while you MAKE SURE the work gets done right.

Then tell yourself it's an aberration and that college experience and young people finding their way are prone to take advantage of each other this way. Then see it repeat again and again doing the work right for everyone either for a grade or because a patients life depended on the work getting done right, or whatever other reason becomes important to you. Watch the laziness reveal itself time after time as people realize you DON'T let work get done badly. See how long you're a socialist then.

There DO need to be safety nets in our society. There ARE times when no matter how hard you work things go wrong. The net, however, needs to be the size of a butterfly net, not a circus net. The people who have a hard time are "down on their luck" about as much as air travel is generally deadly because of one crash.

[Fidel Castrobot]

Originally Posted by Pizzuti

Uh, a totally moot point. Just as easily can a market that feeds and clothes and houses you can leave you starving, naked and homeless.

Maybe it's best to live with just a little bit of both.



How about a city ordinance that requires developers to make just ten percent of their residential units affordable to middle or low-income people. If they don't want to have any affordable units in their development, they can pay the city a fee to become exempt, which will go into a city fund to develop public housing.

Oh, hey, I have great news about that suggestion! And if something with such a little impact on the wealthy as that counts as "wealth redistribution," then all I can say is, it seems that wealth redistribution is, in many cases, the pragmatic thing and the morally and ethically correct thing to do.

Uh.... The difference being that a market, unlike a government, doesn't create laws. Its much harder or impossible to fight a corrupt government if you rely on it for everything in life..Maybe you should take a look at history and report back to me on what you find regarding how previous attempts at socialism have worked out.

[5280]

I love that this thread has already become a battleground over capitalism. Wait til people start posting photos of the luxurious, gilded interior of this building and discussing how there's a full-time dog manicurist available for residents.

[The Dirt]

[Ilsaz]

Originally Posted by 5280

I love that this thread has already become a battleground over capitalism. Wait til people start posting photos of the luxurious, gilded interior of this building and discussing how there's a full-time dog manicurist available for residents.

It is too bad and I apologize for my part in this digression. My friend is a dog manicurist. that would be great if she could get hired there. She needs the work.

But like I said earlier, these digressions come up from time to time. I think all in this forum agree that they want a vibrant downtown. It is the "how" in getting there that we may disagree. And I'm OK with these discussions and so far people have been civil, so that is good.

Again, I have nothing against rich people or luxury high rises. I think the Four Seasons is great. And, if for only practical purposes, I think developers should also consider projects that cater to middle incomes.

And by practical, I mean, how much of a market can their be in Denver for luxury penthouse suites? Especially in a market downturn, I'd hate to see construction grind to a halt because builders only want to tap one particular, lucrative market.

And Giovoni, I'm sorry, but I have no idea what your post had to do with what I was talking about. I will concede that under socialism people can be lazy and lose their incentive to do hard work. It's not a perfect system at all, as evidenced by the mountain of failures. But you are creating a straw man if you think I would dare advocate such a system where sloth could be rewarded. You should concede that capitalism is not a perfect system, either, and its focus on short-term profits have led to the exploitation of workers and limited natural resources.

Peace,
M.