DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Honestly I fundamentally disagree with the basic notion that more green space (or open space) is inherently better. You can have too much of a good thing.

Not only is it undeniably true that dense cities are more environmentally friendly than sprawly ones since dense cities preserve more land as actual nature, and since they result in less pollution per person, but also I think more people would be happier more often if we had a smaller number of higher-quality public spaces, rather than a bunch of empty leftovers all over everywhere that we called green space.

It's OK with me if some people prefer to live in a sprawly environment with a lot of look-but-don't-touch "open space," but it's frustrating that such concepts are so often presented as universally superior/desirable. They definitely are not.

Agreed, and I think this is exactly what most of us are saying as well. Just because Denver currently looks more like the suburban figure-ground map doesn't mean that that is a good, or as you say "universally superior" environment. Nor does it mean that it is the city's "original settlement pattern."

The intellectual dishonesty of the author of this Denver Post series is that he fails to articulate exactly why all of that "open space" is a good thing, other than half-thought-out platitudes about nature being important in people's lives. Or for that matter to even articulate the difference between public open space vs. the empty space on everybody's private lots. Furthermore, he fails to acknowledge or engage with the argument - like the one you just expressed - that dense cities are in fact MORE environmentally friendly, not less. He simply omits this line of reasoning entirely from his writing and fails to talk to anybody in the planning profession who might present this alternative point of view.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Post’s Finely doubles down on the “concrete metropolis” narrative.

“We need more open spaces”: Denver residents feeling stifled by city’s building boom seek room to roam

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/1...ks-open-spaces

I would speculate this kind of "[non]fact [opinion] piece" is why half the country is constantly blurting out fake news. I've always believed intelligent people see through this kind of garbage or maybe I just have too much faith in my neighbors. I'd offer a different perspective based on facts. The State of Colorado during the 2010's is growing at one of the slowest rates since the Great Depression - but you wouldn't think that based on anyone you've spoken to in the last decade or any piece of media you've consumed. Aside from the local oil depression in the 1980's combined with massive tax reform and an S&L crisis, which suppressed growth statewide, Colorado has experienced more rapid growth than the 2010's are seeing in every other post great depression decade - this according to US Census data. If I can figure out how to upload a picture I'll post the infographic.

Sources:
https://www.census.gov/dmd/www/resap...s/colorado.pdf

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/...c2010br-08.pdf

https://www.census.gov/data/datasets...nal-total.html

Since we're on the topic of greenspace and parks, I've long thought that the City should pony up the money to buy up an entire city block in Arapahoe Square and turn it into a City park. The investment it would immediately spur would pay for the park via property taxes within a decade and the City could create a downtown adjacent, high density residential mecca. Minneapolis essentially accomplished this in less than 5 years in an area almost identical to A-Square, granted they built a new football stadium adjacent to the new park.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mi...!4d-93.3847969

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Since we're on the topic of greenspace and parks, I've long thought that the City should pony up the money to buy up an entire city block in Arapahoe Square and turn it into a City park. The investment it would immediately spur would pay for the park via property taxes within a decade and the City could create a downtown adjacent, high density residential mecca. Minneapolis essentially accomplished this in less than 5 years in an area almost identical to A-Square, granted they built a new football stadium adjacent to the new park.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mi...!4d-93.3847969

Civic Center Park, our big urban park, is unusable because of vagrancy. I'd have to imagine anything in Araphahoe Square would be too unless you had a SWAT team patrolling it

[mhays]

More parks can mean fewer bums per park acre.

[HighSt.]

Originally Posted by jhwk

Civic Center Park, our big urban park, is unusable because of vagrancy.

The criteria used to make this statement is wildly subjective. I drive and walk though Civic Center on a daily basis. If what I observe qualifies as unusable, then by extension, most of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are also "unusable due to vagrancy".

While you're at it, please inform all the people who own $1m+ Capitol Hill and Cheesman-area mansions that their neighborhood is "unusable due to vagrancy". I'm sure they'll be willing to let go of their "unusable" property in the low $200's.

I can't think of any area of Denver and the surrounding suburbs where I haven't seen people on the streets. If the city was going to purchase a traunche of Arapahoe Square, it better be to create more transitional housing.

Better yet, the city should buy a parcel so that Beloved Village, an existing and successful transitional housing program, can stay in one place and not be continually evicted and re-evicted by the RiNo building boom on a yearly basis.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by jhwk

Civic Center Park, our big urban park, is unusable because of vagrancy. I'd have to imagine anything in Araphahoe Square would be too unless you had a SWAT team patrolling it

The City could simultaneously approach the park with developers in hand. It would be a golden parachute for any developer to follow a City park effort. Barring individual property owner resistance to selling (which is a real issue) land values would likely rise to a level that would motivate the handful of longtime surface lot and condemned building owning families to sell...

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by jhwk

Civic Center Park, our big urban park, is unusable because of vagrancy.

I would say it's a haven for vagrancy because the blocks surrounding it are not active enough with pedestrians to populate the park with other users, so vagrants are the only people going there most of the time. If Colfax and 14th in front of the park were lined with main street retail instead of barren walls and loading dock entrances, I doubt the vagrancy would seem like a big deal.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I would say it's a haven for vagrancy because the blocks surrounding it are not active enough with pedestrians to populate the park with other users, so vagrants are the only people going there most of the time. If Colfax and 14th in front of the park were lined with main street retail instead of barren walls and loading dock entrances, I doubt the vagrancy would seem like a big deal.

Well thank god the city prepared for that when they renovated Civic Center and gave Colfax a streetscape treatment worthy of skid row


I think Pritzker Pavilion in Chicago provides a wonderful example of what a public space in an urban core can turn into with investment and thoughtful design. Too bad the city built Levitt Pavillion off in the boonies -- would have much rather seen that in the urban core (and designed much better)

Originally Posted by HighSt.

The criteria used to make this statement is wildly subjective. I drive and walk though Civic Center on a daily basis. If what I observe qualifies as unusable, then by extension, most of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are also "unusable due to vagrancy".

While you're at it, please inform all the people who own $1m+ Capitol Hill and Cheesman-area mansions that their neighborhood is "unusable due to vagrancy".

The statement was that the park is unusable, not the neighborhood. And with the exception of a few events a year its a pretty accurate statement. I don't see many residents of cap hill mansions going for a friendly stroll in civic center park.

[TakeFive]

Have you ever considered how awful the life of being a statistic is?

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

Hey fellow park-surrounded neighbor!

Very well played.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Even more fundamentally I think the article simply panders to the basic complaint that Denver is getting too crowded! Too much, growth, too many people! The story cloaks what really is nothing more than that ongoing rant with a claim about how much better it used to be with all of the "green space" for people to enjoy. Although Denver indeed is sigfnicantly more crowded than it was in the 1970s (by the late 1970s Denver's population dropped below 500K), as we know, the part about how much green space there used to be is , to coin a phrase, "fake news."

I agree and I always empathize a little bit with those trying to cope with rapid change.

I think Trump has the right idea. Since the art of propaganda is to cherry pick stats and facts to fit your own agenda (whether right or left) then why not just disregard all of it and make up your own facts.

Last night I spent a few minutes debating erudite 'Jim Dwyer' (on Streetsblog) for disregarding the obvious fallacies of a liberal-based 'study'.

I do like open space but agree with those that Denver, both city and metro have done a solid job of creating and nourishing added park/open space over the decades.

The more difficult and interesting challenge for Denver is not the density; generally that is happening mostly where it should, even if it frustrates some long-timers. The bigger challenge is Denver has fairly quickly become a liberal elitist place where commoners are left to fight over the scraps of a life that has passed.

[CherryCreek]

Well, this is too bad.

https://businessden.com/2019/01/14/f...26c9-148029773

The old Evans School and the immediate surrounding area presents some really cool development opportunities.


The design that was being proposed was pretty cool.

I hope something still works out there! It's a great asset for that neighborhood.

[LooksLikeForever]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It's OK with me if some people prefer to live in a sprawly environment with a lot of look-but-don't-touch "open space," but it's frustrating that such concepts are so often presented as universally superior/desirable. They definitely are not.

I think this is a great point and often overlooked in the debate about open space, particularly with the article in question.

As another Street View example, take a look at this location in the DTC. True, this isn't in Denver proper, but do these sprawling green spaces in front of office buildings really contribute much to the urban fabric? How many resources are spent keeping the grass meticulously mowed and watered and how many office works actually utilize this space? I'd wager this grass is almost never touched by anyone other than landscapers.

Beyond that, I'd imagine if you tried to have a picnic lunch on that grass and you aren't an employee in that office building that you'd be asked to leave in short order.

I suppose the privatization of open space is beyond the scope of this forum and topic, but to bring it closer to home it's interesting to see the dichotomy between this green space and Civic Center Park, two patches of grass in front of an office building with entirely different results.

[Ich]

“We are left with the dregs”: Heron Pond’s toxic brew spotlights obstacles in Denver’s push to regain green space

Couldn’t post the direct link as I use the app... BUT I just think the author will never be happy. All of his articles take a negative and catostrophic tone to drive his unfounded and bias point home. Using 1970 as a baseline is dumb. My understanding is Denver used to be a dirty and polluted city and has made significant strides in cleaning up the environment. The land that has been lost wasn’t public green space but privately owned land. I’m assuming most was taken up by DTC and Green Valley/ DIA area. If you want a butt load of open space move to Castle Rock, northern suburbs or Aurora. People in his camp seem to want urban amenities but the open space of the burbs but still in central Denver. Anyways his article is about how Denver is wanting to add 80 acres of public space but take a negative and social justice tone.

I don’t think anything written by Bruce Finely is worth reading

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by HighSt.

The criteria used to make this statement is wildly subjective. I drive and walk though Civic Center on a daily basis. If what I observe qualifies as unusable, then by extension, most of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are also "unusable due to vagrancy".

While you're at it, please inform all the people who own $1m+ Capitol Hill and Cheesman-area mansions that their neighborhood is "unusable due to vagrancy". I'm sure they'll be willing to let go of their "unusable" property in the low $200's.

My initially gut reaction to the comment you replied to is it was a bit uncharitable. But as someone who works in Civic Center and lived in Cap Hill until recently, that is absolutely the public's perception, by and large. There's a negative perception of Civic Center by workers and nearby residents. Right or wrong, people feel unsafe, especially on the east end of CC and the square bounded by Colfax, 14th, Broadway and Lincoln. These areas are underused most of the time, with exceptions such as midday during Civic Center Eats and one-off weekend events.

No one in Cap Hill goes and hangs out in Civic Center, that's what Cheesman is for. Cirrus' comment about the built environment being inhospitable to pedestrian buzz is a big part of the problem, too. I don't see that ever changing though because the park is ringed by government institutions and museums. No infill retail or restaurants coming anytime soon.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Ich

“We are left with the dregs”: Heron Pond’s toxic brew spotlights obstacles in Denver’s push to regain green space.

Thanks for your well stated comment. I purposely avoided reading the piece since I sensed it was nonsense.

Maybe it's my age but today's 'environmentalists' irritate me. Colorado and Denver have always been at the forefront of environmental issues in general. I was leading the charge back in the 1970's before the EPA even existed. But given how far things and Colorado have come, these good folk should consider getting a life.

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

My initially gut reaction to the comment you replied to is it was a bit uncharitable. But as someone who works in Civic Center and lived in Cap Hill until recently, that is absolutely the public's perception, by and large.

Also well said and summarized plus it wasn't always this way (except for the neighborhood part). Sooo much has changed. It was only a decade or so ago that Commons Park was also a delightful place to be.

The standard 'urban' response is to activate the area but today that's not necessarily an auto-cure. More importantly Denver took an indepth hard look at changing the character of Civic Center Park but overwhelmingly decided to keep the historical character of what has been there forever. A lot of money was invested during the last bond issue to improve it various pieces.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Does it seem to anyone else that developmental activity (permits/groundbreaking) has started to really slow down? To the extent that others have a similar impression, is the lack of groundbreakings more of a seasonal issue or broad economic trend?

[twister244]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Does it seem to anyone else that developmental activity (permits/groundbreaking) has started to really slow down? To the extent that others have a similar impression, is the lack of groundbreakings more of a seasonal issue or broad economic trend?

I almost thought that until DenverInfill did their crane count, along with update on square footage UC/completed for residential/office. We still have a ton of stuff under construction in the city from what I can tell. I think the difference is we don't have huge, high profile projects (I.E. 1144 15th) under construction anymore. Plus, with Union Station just about built out, we don't have a big cluster of cranes like we did a couple years ago.

But, on a neighborhood level, I still feel like we have stuff breaking ground. In my neck of the woods (Jefferson Park), scrape/builds are still breaking ground and going up just as fast as they were a year ago. Plus, the Loma site is moving forward on their plans for a massive apartment complex.

On the infrastructure level, we have I-70 being reconstructed, the National Western Center, the airport terminal expansion, and the airport Grand Hall renovation that all broke ground this past year. No shortage on that front.....

Also, it doesn't appear that proposals are slowing down, or coming to a trickle. Hell, we just had the Bell Tower story break this past week. Oh, and on top of that, there are plans going through the city for River Mile and the Stadium District. I mean, maybe things aren't quite as busy as they were a couple years ago. But then again, we just went through one of the most transformative booms in Denver's recent history, so perspective matters.

[COS]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Agreed, and I think this is exactly what most of us are saying as well. Just because Denver currently looks more like the suburban figure-ground map doesn't mean that that is a good, or as you say "universally superior" environment. Nor does it mean that it is the city's "original settlement pattern."

The intellectual dishonesty of the author of this Denver Post series is that he fails to articulate exactly why all of that "open space" is a good thing, other than half-thought-out platitudes about nature being important in people's lives. Or for that matter to even articulate the difference between public open space vs. the empty space on everybody's private lots. Furthermore, he fails to acknowledge or engage with the argument - like the one you just expressed - that dense cities are in fact MORE environmentally friendly, not less. He simply omits this line of reasoning entirely from his writing and fails to talk to anybody in the planning profession who might present this alternative point of view.

As someone who lived in Cherry Creek North for 2yrs, I agree 100% with both yours and Cirrus posts. Living in one of the denser areas of Denver, I had access to a great little neighborhood park, and an off-street bike path to connect me to other great city parks within a block of my building. If our immediate park didn't have the amenities I was looking for on a particular day, it was an enjoyable ride to somewhere else with amenities I was looking for, and it wasn't complicated to figure out.

While not all of Denver has this form, it sure seems like the city is moving towards providing this fabric in many areas, and hopefully resident experiences will outweigh poorly researched opinion pieces like these. If these guys want green space and want to drive 20min to get anywhere they're going, they should move down to the springs, we have exactly what they're looking for.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Does it seem to anyone else that developmental activity (permits/groundbreaking) has started to really slow down? To the extent that others have a similar impression, is the lack of groundbreakings more of a seasonal issue or broad economic trend?

Here's a timely discussion of the question you ask:

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/1...l-estate-2018/

2018 was a great year, but a slowdown surely is inevitable? The Post article notes that investor interest has been incredible in Denver's thriving market, with prices soaring. Still, the pending construction could lead to higher vacancy rates:

So, what’s on tap for 2019? A lot more speculative construction, and, potentially, lower lease rates, Bolt said.
Of the 4.2 million square feet of commercial space under construction in Denver today, roughly 3.5 million
of it doesn’t have tenant attached yet. “That certainly could turn the tide a little bit as some of the developers
that aren’t doing as well have to give in on lease rates,” he said.

If I had one growing concern about the Denver commercial market it is the amazing amount of space being absorbed by shared work companies, particularly WeWork (soon to be Denver's largest tenant). If the recession comes soon, as many expect, their business model will definitely be put to the test. A huge part of the value proposition for WeWork and their ilk is for companies to be able to off load long term real estate risks. The rents are higher, but the trade off is that companies get turn-key ready commercial space under flexible leases. If a serious recession comes and they need to lay off employees, they can quickly cut their real estate expenses by reducing or closing WeWork space. Is WeWork properly built to actually deal with the risks that have been offloaded to them, come a recession? Do they carry sufficient capital reserves to weather out a real recession? Or is the whole shared-working business model contributing to a significant commercial real estate bubble (WeWork is also the largest tenant in NYC!).

To quote Gary Kubiak, "we're fixing to find out."

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever

I think this is a great point and often overlooked in the debate about open space, particularly with the article in question.

As another Street View example, take a look at this location in the DTC. True, this isn't in Denver proper, but do these sprawling green spaces in front of office buildings really contribute much to the urban fabric? How many resources are spent keeping the grass meticulously mowed and watered and how many office works actually utilize this space? I'd wager this grass is almost never touched by anyone other than landscapers.

Beyond that, I'd imagine if you tried to have a picnic lunch on that grass and you aren't an employee in that office building that you'd be asked to leave in short order.

I suppose the privatization of open space is beyond the scope of this forum and topic, but to bring it closer to home it's interesting to see the dichotomy between this green space and Civic Center Park, two patches of grass in front of an office building with entirely different results.

I've always thought the same thing about open grassy areas (outside of actual parks). It's just a wast of space and water. I grew up in a house that had a half acre of grass to mow weekly. No one ever touched that grass other than me, when I mowed it. What's the point? In my Stapleton home, I have the grass between the sidewalk and street and that's it. And having a front porch that's near the sidewalk makes it easy so socialize with my neighbors, which I enjoy much more than looking at a sea of grass.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Here's a timely discussion of the question you ask:

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/1...l-estate-2018/

2018 was a great year, but a slowdown surely is inevitable? The Post article notes that investor interest has been incredible in Denver's thriving market, with prices soaring. Still, the pending construction could lead to higher vacancy rates:

So, what’s on tap for 2019? A lot more speculative construction, and, potentially, lower lease rates, Bolt said.
Of the 4.2 million square feet of commercial space under construction in Denver today, roughly 3.5 million
of it doesn’t have tenant attached yet. “That certainly could turn the tide a little bit as some of the developers
that aren’t doing as well have to give in on lease rates,” he said.

If I had one growing concern about the Denver commercial market it is the amazing amount of space being absorbed by shared work companies, particularly WeWork (soon to be Denver's largest tenant). If the recession comes soon, as many expect, their business model will definitely be put to the test. A huge part of the value proposition for WeWork and their ilk is for companies to be able to off load long term real estate risks. The rents are higher, but the trade off is that companies get turn-key ready commercial space under flexible leases. If a serious recession comes and they need to lay off employees, they can quickly cut their real estate expenses by reducing or closing WeWork space. Is WeWork properly built to actually deal with the risks that have been offloaded to them, come a recession? Do they carry sufficient capital reserves to weather out a real recession? Or is the whole shared-working business model contributing to a significant commercial real estate bubble (WeWork is also the largest tenant in NYC!).

To quote Gary Kubiak, "we're fixing to find out."

In my opinion, the Regus', Industrious', etc etc etc of the world will be more at risk than WeWork. WeWork is getting large corporate tenants on longer term leases. It's sort of like saying that if people stop drinking as much craft beer will New Belgium be at risk? Probably not as much as one of the smaller guys.