DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

This was a perfect (enough) example of how I thought incorporating middle-market housing made all the sense in the world. It turns out my 'centrist' position was too radical for Crestmoor.

Sachs's position that's it a win for 'sprawl' and 'segregation' is pointless liberal political nonsense. It's about broadening the housing options to include middle market opportunities for some. It is disappointing that mid-market options couldn't be accommodated in this case but it would hardly have eliminated sprawl or segregation.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

As others have previously pointed out, to some extent this is a generational battle - a battle between those who've "got theirs already" (i.e., housing they desire and can afford because many bought when housing was much less expensive) and aren't inclined to accept any changes that inconvenience them in any way (parking),

I generally agree; change is typically much harder than maintaining the status quo.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Well, we could strip voting rights from anyone over the age of 60 on the grounds of them being mentally incompetent..... I'm always down with anything that acknowledges that democracy is a terrible form of government, asides from all other forms.

Really, as CherryCreek discussed, this is a generational battle with the Baby Boomers (the fuck yours, I've got mine generation) and Gen X-er's and Millennial. At this point, I'm thinking that YIMBY Denver needs to throw down the gauntlet and push a ballot measure to upzone the entire city by banning single unit maximums and allowing ADU's as use by right. Colorado is the land of ill-conceived citizen's initiatives and I'm pretty sure that you can sell this initiative in 2020 with a "bigoted, white, rich old people with their black hearts don't want you young, diverse, whipper snappers to have a home" message that would override the advantage that home-owner's have. It would hopefully co-opt the anti-gentrification crowd as well.

There was a letter to the editor in the DP recently where the person was calling for "no more skyscrapers downtown" because it has become "too crowded". There are definitely some crazy people out there!

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Council members Rafael Espinoza, Kevin Flynn, Paul Kashmann, Paul Lopez and Debbie Ortega voted against a zoning change that would have allowed more density on a block...

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Really, as CherryCreek discussed, this is a generational battle with the Baby Boomers (the fuck yours, I've got mine generation) and Gen X-er's and Millennial. At this point, I'm thinking that YIMBY Denver needs to throw down the gauntlet and push a ballot measure to upzone the entire city by banning single unit maximums and allowing ADU's as use by right.

Can't totally disagree but it's hard to peg those who voted against this change fitting your rant profile. To assume that this issue goes only to Boomers is to assume they're wrong by definition. I would agree that twenty-somethings are more open to change but as you indicated proposed changes are not always a good thing. In any case, chasing all the (successful) Boomers to the suburbs is a suspect idea. Plus you might find it's not just Boomers but younger successful people as well.

The part your missing is that many in this group are NOT happy about gentrification. Preserving the 'character' is as much of an issue in Elyria Swansea, SW and NE neighborhoods.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Can't totally disagree but it's hard to peg those who voted against this change fitting your rant profile. To assume that this issue goes only to Boomers is to assume they're wrong by definition. I would agree that twenty-somethings are more open to change but as you indicated proposed changes are not always a good thing. In any case, chasing all the (successful) Boomers to the suburbs is a suspect idea. Plus you might find it's not just Boomers but younger successful people as well.

The part your missing is that many in this group are NOT happy about gentrification. Preserving the 'character' is as much of an issue in Elyria Swansea, SW and NE neighborhoods.

Oh, I think you missed out on the sarcasm in my post and thinking that my gross over-simplification of the issue is the only thing that I recognize. However, in regards to this Crestmoor issue, I will bet that 75% to 80% of the people who spoke out in opposition to this deal were of the grey-haired variety. Anyway, 3 of the 5 of the council members who opposed this are Baby Boomers.

I do fail to see how getting rid of SFH maximum zoning chases anyone away- it just reverts these neighborhoods to the kind of development model that they originally came to fruition under- until zoning in the 1950's tried to freeze time. I guess I'm just more inclined to loosen up zoning in Denver and let the market provide a bit more input in shaping these neighborhoods.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Oh, I think you missed out on the sarcasm in my post and thinking that my gross over-simplification of the issue is the only thing that I recognize. However, in regards to this Crestmoor issue, I will bet that 75% to 80% of the people who spoke out in opposition to this deal were of the grey-haired variety.

The Denverite was kind enough to provide a pic of the opposition. Some grey hairs to be sure, but surprisingly diverse. The persons raising their hands were against approving the zoning change to permit the redevelopment.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I think you are right as far as the immediate future, I see a significant risk of the NIMBY votes (don't change my uber nice, expensive neighborhood) combining with the anti-gentrification (don't change my previously depressed, but affordable neighborhood) votes to elect an anti-growth/anti-density majority (and perhaps even a mayor).

This is what I expect to happen, frankly. (Broad generalization incoming) Older folks hate change and density, younger folks don't care or are swayed by then anti-displacement argument that you hear from people like Lisa Calderon. Way too many people think that "developers" have caused gentrification and that by disallowing development neighborhoods will remain neglected and undervalued.

I think Wong is on to something; the YIMBY folks in this town need a bold, loud plan to get the public's attention and provide a different narrative than most people are used to hearing. Showing up at rezoning hearings for one off projects is not going to lead to meaningful change. Our politicians aren't going to do it on their own (in other cities, politicians have led the way.)

[BG918]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Oh, I think you missed out on the sarcasm in my post and thinking that my gross over-simplification of the issue is the only thing that I recognize. However, in regards to this Crestmoor issue, I will bet that 75% to 80% of the people who spoke out in opposition to this deal were of the grey-haired variety.

I do fail to see how getting rid of SFH maximum zoning chases anyone away- it just reverts these neighborhoods to the kind of development model that they originally came to fruition under- until zoning in the 1950's tried to freeze time. I guess I'm just more inclined to loosen up zoning in Denver and let the market provide a bit more input in shaping these neighborhoods.

I think people have seen what has happened to Jefferson Park and Sloan's Lake, where there was an upzoning and few if any NIMBY's to stop it, and don't want that same thing happening in their expensive SFH neighborhoods. The Hilltop/Crestmoor Park issue is completely ridiculous though, that would've improved that stretch of Holly which is already mixed-use with the Park Burger and High Point Creamery.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by BG918

I think people have seen what has happened to Jefferson Park and Sloan's Lake, where there was an upzoning and few if any NIMBY's to stop it, and don't want that same thing happening in their expensive SFH neighborhoods. The Hilltop/Crestmoor Park issue is completely ridiculous though, that would've improved that stretch of Holly which is already mixed-use with the Park Burger and High Point Creamery.

Also, to follow up on your point, I agree that "bad" development, like some of the fugliness that's been recently discussed on here in the Tennyson Street corridor, helps build opposition to all development, with people fearing that their neighborhoods will get the same treatment.

Obviously, if you are paying attention, you can easily distinguish ill-conceived apartment abominations ruining a strategic street corner in a high traffic area, with the thoughtful, incremental development that was being discussed here.

But a lot of fed up people may be inclined to throw babies out with bathwater, rather than risk it.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

The Denverite was kind enough to provide a pic of the opposition. Some grey hairs to be sure, but surprisingly diverse. The persons raising their hands were against approving the zoning change to permit the redevelopment.

IDK, that looks like a lot of grey hair and wrinkly faces with raised hands to me.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

IDK, that looks like a lot of grey hair and wrinkly faces with raised hands to me.

Yeah the only diversity I see is the man in the raccoon hat. The rest look like they came straight from playing bridge at the JCC.

IF YOU ARE TIRED OF NURSES, TEACHERS, FIREMEN AND OTHERS OF MODERATE INCOME TRYING TO LIVE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND ACTING LIKE THEY ARE IN GLENDALE.......IF YOU ARE TIRED OF WALKING TO YOUR LOCAL DINING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS.........IF YOU ARE TIRED OF LOOKING OUT YOUR FRONT WINDOW AND SEEING SOMEONE PARKED IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE ONCE PER MONTH.....THEN PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIRRRRRRRRRRR

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Our peer cities such as Minneapolis, Portland and Seattle are challenging single family zoning and parking minimums city-wide, but Denver seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

What about peer cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, SLC, Dallas, Austin, Nashville etc. Btw, this is where even more of the population growth is going. Portland/Oregon including the head of TriMet and the Dem governor also endorsed more freeway expansion last year.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

IDK, that looks like a lot of grey hair and wrinkly faces with raised hands to me.

Confirmation bias? Nobody is suggesting that older folk don't make up a typical percentage of SFH neighborhoods both upscale and middle class. It was also that way when I was 22 and I enjoyed knowing them.

People that have been around more than a couple of decades are indeed likely to be older. Change is always hard and Denver has been changing at warp speed but I wouldn't conclude too much over the mood of the moment other than for the moment resistance to change will happen.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I think you are right as far as the immediate future, I see a significant risk of the NIMBY votes (don't change my uber nice, expensive neighborhood) combining with the anti-gentrification (don't change my previously depressed, but affordable neighborhood) votes to elect an anti-growth/anti-density majority (and perhaps even a mayor).

Excellent assessment; I happen to miss it earlier.

[TakeFive]

It is what it is

I'm confident that the current makeup of the Colorado legislature will encourage more 'middle-market jobs' to go elsewhere. This has largely already been the case. There's reasons why State Farm when siting three regional offices to accommodate 8,000 employees each, picked Arizona, Texas and Georgia. Same can be said for Geico and other back-office jobs in general. Even high flier Apple (whose success follows being notoriously cheap) picked Texas/Austin to expand is now rumored to have closed on land in the RTP (Research Triangle Park) in North Carolina. They're all red states with a 'right to work' mentality. Check out the map for right-to-work states; it looks a lot like the last electoral map (Yes, I'm aware of the recent SCOTUS decision). Even the rust belt, depending on their politics could benefit from companies looking for a better business environment.

Honestly, Denver/Colorado can't absorb lots of those jobs anyway due to various constraints. This impacts a lot of things including housing; it is what it is.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It is what it is

I'm confident that the current makeup of the Colorado legislature will encourage more 'middle-market jobs' to go elsewhere. This has largely already been the case. There's reasons why State Farm when siting three regional offices to accommodate 8,000 employees each, picked Arizona, Texas and Georgia. Same can be said for Geico and other back-office jobs in general. Even high flier Apple (whose success follows being notoriously cheap) picked Texas/Austin to expand is now rumored to have closed on land in the RTP (Research Triangle Park) in North Carolina. They're all red states with a 'right to work' mentality. Check out the map for right-to-work states; it looks a lot like the last electoral map (Yes, I'm aware of the recent SCOTUS decision). Even the rust belt, depending on their politics could benefit from companies looking for a better business environment.

Honestly, Denver/Colorado can't absorb lots of those jobs anyway due to various constraints. This impacts a lot of things including housing; it is what it is.

Colorado might not be a "right to work" state, but its level of unionization has always seemed pretty minimal, at least to me. Googling around, it seems that Colorado's work force is right below 10% unionized, which is right around the national average (and lower than "red states" such as Montana, Kentucky, and West Virginia).

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/un...te-in-2016.htm

It does appear that Colorado's numbers are inching up.

https://gazette.com/business/union-m...dea967d2e.html

Still, the areas you mention - Apple, back office support for insurance, seem highly unlikely to be unionized nowadays anywhere. On the other hand Colorado's high cost of living and relatively high wages are certainly going to scare off a lot national employers looking for a low cost base (i.e., the middle-market jobs). I suppose it depends on what a business is looking for.
Forbes' most recent list has Colorado on their Top 10 list of states that are "best for business."

https://www.forbes.com/best-states-f...t/#tab:overall

That might be a fairly meaningless category because it really depends on what "business friendly" things you value most (low taxes? educated work force? low wages? easy access to international markets?).

In any event, I agree with you, Denver and Colorado are nicely situated with a hand in very many different pies (oil and gas, technology, defense/space, bio-med, financial services, tourism), even though we can't claim to run a pie shop in any one particular area.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

What about peer cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, SLC, Dallas, Austin, Nashville etc. Btw, this is where even more of the population growth is going. Portland/Oregon including the head of TriMet and the Dem governor also endorsed more freeway expansion last year.

Among urbanists at least, Denver likes to compare itself to the three I named far more than your list. And afaik, there hasn't been much news about those cities reforming land use policy. Those are all notorious sprawlburgs (though props to SLC for the progress it has made). Denver likes to think of itself as forward thinking and progressive from an urbanism and environmentalism standpoint, and Dallas/Vegas/San Antonio/etc. is generally not associated with those things.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Colorado might not be a "right to work" state, but its level of unionization has always seemed pretty minimal, at least to me.

I was mostly using right-to-work as a metaphor for states that are both more business friendly and have a lower 'cost of doing business.' With the recent Supreme Court decision that is almost a moot point.

From what I understand Colorado is about to join California, New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island as the only states to have Paid Family Leave. I don't have a personal political position; I'm only noting what companies objectively consider when they assess cost of doing business etc. Many companies will be very generous in donating to causes they deem worthy; the key is they want to make these decisions voluntarily.

I have previously suggested that if other places grow their population faster than Denver, who cares? But Denver which can still appeal to more highbrow companies helps to create growing affordability issues.

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Among urbanists at least, Denver likes to compare itself to the three I named far more than your list. And afaik, there hasn't been much news about those cities reforming land use policy. Those are all notorious sprawlburgs (though props to SLC for the progress it has made). Denver likes to think of itself as forward thinking and progressive from an urbanism and environmentalism standpoint, and Dallas/Vegas/San Antonio/etc. is generally not associated with those things.

Yes, I agree; Denver likes to think of itself as a coastal city even though it isn't.

I also agree there's a significant and growing core that are 'urbanists' and more progressive. Colorado has been traditionally more environmentally friendly than other states. Partly it goes to Western Slope Republicans appreciating clean air/water which is important to their livelihoods, whether ranching or tourism and often both.

There's also a significant number of people that would be happier to turn the clock back. I'm going to stick to my oft-mentioned notion that Denver and Colorado will be more of a Hybrid kind of place.

[Ich]

Quick rant but I think most of the discussion revolving development in Denver has become so negative and deconstructive. One side of the aisle, you have NIMBYs who complain about gentrification, yet most are responsible for it. They buy in a growing city near the downtown core then complain about the changing "character" of their precious neighborhood and unless you can afford 550k plus, don't even think about trying to live there.... but also, don't forget about poor low-income families that are being displaced, we need more affordable housing, but I don't want to pay for it and low-income housing doesn't fit the character and feel of our neighborhood so build it somewhere else.

On the other side of the aisle, you have YIMBYs that literally complain about everything. If it isn't an architectural wonder that is 50 plus stories tall, no parking and isn't mostly glass then it’s just complete crap. Nothing getting built in Denver is good enough for Denver and they react off the current state of being and literally cannot bring a positive comment to the table. They lust for the buildings of Seattle and New York but don't want to pay the prices they command. I bet you if Denver starts supporting near 4sf rents then the quality of building materials will increase. But even when I lived in Seattle people had complained about their development.

While hanging out in Cheeseman park I realized how silly a lot of you were being when reacting off the current state of development and not really seeing the whole picture. I think a lot of the buildings around Cheeseman are ugly and I don't really understand the idea behind them, but it also wouldn't feel right if they weren't there. And I really like the look and feel of that neighborhood with the mix of SF and MF housing options. Everything matured into what the neighborhood is now, and I think it’s one of my favorite areas in Denver.

So those land barges and basic looking slot homes/ apartments building a lot of you freak out about will eventually blend in and mature with the neighborhood adding to (not changing) the character of the neighborhood. The Welton corridor will continue to densify lessening the impact of those boat buildings. Slot homes will eventually mature into their surroundings as new buildings and mature foliage help blend them in.

I think the constructive thing to focus on maybe instituting DRBs to improve the quality of construction, focus on inner-city transportation before it's too late (look at Seattle), and promote and encourage sustainable growth.

And this is coming from a Denver native who loves the growth and development we have seen.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Ich

On the other side of the aisle, you have YIMBYs that literally complain about everything.

Heck, that's all that need be said.

Originally Posted by Ich

While hanging out in Cheeseman park I realized how silly a lot of you were being when reacting off the current state of development and not really seeing the whole picture. I think a lot of the buildings around Cheeseman are ugly and I don't really understand the idea behind them, but it also wouldn't feel right if they weren't there. And I really like the look and feel of that neighborhood with the mix of SF and MF housing options. Everything matured into what the neighborhood is now, and I think it’s one of my favorite areas in Denver.

I like that paragraph; nicely said.

[The Dirt]

Those aren't YIMBYs, they're Denver FUGLYs.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Among urbanists at least, Denver likes to compare itself to the three I named far more than your list. And afaik, there hasn't been much news about those cities reforming land use policy. Those are all notorious sprawlburgs (though props to SLC for the progress it has made). Denver likes to think of itself as forward thinking and progressive from an urbanism and environmentalism standpoint, and Dallas/Vegas/San Antonio/etc. is generally not associated with those things.

I completely agree. Minneapolis, Portland, and Seattle are Denver's best peer cities, not Phoenix, Las Vegas, SLC, Dallas, Austin, Nashville.

Austin, SLC, and Nashville are much smaller than Denver, and Phoenix and Las Vegas are not cities Denver would wish to compare itself to for many reasons.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Those aren't YIMBYs, they're Denver FUGLYs.

Totally agree.

Ich, you are confused as to what YIMBYs stand for.