DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Would it really? She's talking about getting four corridors going (Colfax, Broadway, 38th, and Federal). How's that solve the transit issue in the eastern, southern, and central portions of the city? Upgrading all of the major transit corridors with BRT is probably a $3B project, and she wants to spend probably that amount on four stinking corridors.

Curious what rainbow she expects to find the pot of gold to pay for this. Taxing ride share doesn't even come close.

The economic viability argument that I've heard from her is that streetcar systems have proven to attract more investment than regular bus services. The upfront capital costs are substantially higher but I believe the long term costs are less than bus on a per passenger basis. I'd have to pull citations though if you would like any of those claims substantiated. It seems to me that Colfax should be the priority. The 0 and the 0L move up and down Broadway pretty well.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

The economic viability argument that I've heard from her is that streetcar systems have proven to attract more investment than regular bus services. The upfront capital costs are substantially higher but I believe the long term costs are less than bus on a per passenger basis. I'd have to pull citations though if you would like any of those claims substantiated. It seems to me that Colfax should be the priority. The 0 and the 0L move up and down Broadway pretty well.

Except the Alternatives Analysis for Colfax already screened out a streetcar. So if you want that, you'd have to restart the whole planning process. Great campaign talking point (a lot of us really wanted the streetcar over BRT) but not easy in the real world.

Also, the expected (speculated) real estate investment, and subsequent tax revenue generated by it, is nearly impossible to capture for upfront capital expenditure. It is not a substitute for actually having to pay for a project. All it does is, theoretically, pay the City back over time. Given our bonding limitations, a P3 is an alternative, but again real estate is nearly impossible to monetize for upfront public stuff at any significant scale. So realistically, in a world with extremely constrained federal transit dollars, we are talking a tax initiative going to the voters. That's when we will start to see the real pocketbook cost of the dream. (I've been doing that math for a very long time. Infrastructure finance is what I do, after all.)

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Councilmember District 3
Jamie Torres has a small lead over Veronica Barela; no opinion; guess is Torres would be fine.

This race makes me glad I live in District 3 (right on the edge, the opposite side of our street is District 1)
Torres is the Chair of DHA and both she and Barela (who was the president of NEWSED) talk about the need for home ownership, apartment construction and improving the developer/community relationship. Both have mentioned that they want to encourage a diverse selection of housing and reduce the impression that all development equals gentrification. They both talked about how building smaller, cheaper apartments (like the missing middle example on here recently) is a good way to reduce rental costs. AND they've both been involved in building exactly that at their organizations. They might not be full-on free-market build-anything-anywhere types, but it's a strong contrast to the Penfield Tate/Candi CdeBaca-style NIMBYism that will do nothing but damage to the people they claim to be wanting to help. I wish there were more people running for city government like them, tbh

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Except the Alternatives Analysis for Colfax already screened out a streetcar. So if you want that, you'd have to restart the whole planning process. Great campaign talking point (a lot of us really wanted the streetcar over BRT) but not easy in the real world.

Also, the expected (speculated) real estate investment, and subsequent tax revenue generated by it, is nearly impossible to capture for upfront capital expenditure. It is not a substitute for actually having to pay for a project. All it does is, theoretically, pay the City back over time. Given our bonding limitations, a P3 is an alternative, but again real estate is nearly impossible to monetize for upfront public stuff at any significant scale. So realistically, in a world with extremely constrained federal transit dollars, we are talking a tax initiative going to the voters. That's when we will start to see the real pocketbook cost of the dream. (I've been doing that math for a very long time. Infrastructure finance is what I do, after all.)

Thanks for the insight! I'm certainly no expert on the issue but that was just the argument that I heard Jamie make,.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Thanks for the insight! I'm certainly no expert on the issue but that was just the argument that I heard Jamie make,.

Jamie's been saying a lot of things. Like there's a $200M fund that can be tapped to provide downpayment assistance for the "Missing Middle" to get housing.

Yep, she, an urban planner by training, is misusing the term.

[TakeFive]

I enjoyed Jamie's emphasis on transit but found her to be totally clueless on the topic.

For corridors like Federal or Broadway you'd want to go with Light rail not streetcar as a mode. IIRC, streetcars only provide about a 20% discount to light rail. Perhaps due to their narrower profile they might be better on Colfax. Only places I'm aware of that have streetcars use them primarily in the city core. It's a pretty expensive toy but if you're only going say a half mile then the cost can be reasonable.

bunt's correct in that Jamie just comes up with fanciful financing ideas without having a clue whether they make any sense or not. They don't.

Denver is struggling just to find money for bike lanes and sidewalks. No way are voters likely to support the kind of investment needed for any kind of rail project. First objection would be that they already pay RTD taxes - and they'd be right.

[CPVLIVE]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Denver is struggling just to find money for bike lanes and sidewalks. No way are voters likely to support the kind of investment needed for any kind of rail project. First objection would be that they already pay RTD taxes - and they'd be right.

Don't confuse Denver voters with Denver metro area voters.

[twister244]

Well..... looks like we shouldn't jump to mushroom conclusions.....
Initiated Ordinance 301
YES/FOR - SI/EN FAVOR DE
89,320 votes
50.56%
NO/AGAINST - NO/EN CONTRA DE
87,341 votes
49.44%

The yes's just pulled ahead.....

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CPVLIVE

Don't confuse Denver voters with Denver metro area voters.

You mean don't sell Denver voters short? That's a reasonable question. Of course a lot would depend on exactly what's being proposed.

wong's ballpark figure of $3 billion is not unreasonable. I've estimated 15 miles of urban light rail at $2.5-$3 billion depending on amount of grade separation. Jamie appears to be suggesting something closer to 25 miles or over $4 billion. And that's based on today's $'s which may no longer be available. But how would that pencil out over 30 years and how would taxpayers pay for it? Good question.

If you were to focus primarily on the city core it might make more sense and be more financially feasible. But would that appeal to all of the city's voters? If you're thinking of all of Denver then it's the SE corridor that's most devoid of existing light rail options which is why I like Broadway to Speer/Leetsdale corridor. Add in Colorado Blvd between I-25 and the A Line 40th street station is how I get to 15 miles.

If all you want is for a streetcar to run along Larimer or Market streets through RiNo and circle around then a streetcar could be done for much less.

[CherryCreek]

Holy crap. Denver approved mushroom decriminalization. What the hell?

Were the voters high????? I realize the law doesn't make mushrooms legal, it simply takes the view that Denver won't prosecute people for mushrooms.

But the optics are horrible and will be on every talk show tomorrow. I don't think anyone bothered to oppose this actively because nobody that it had any chance of passing. Now the New York Times is sending out news alerts on this.

Ugh.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/0...agic-mushroom/

[mishko27]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Holy crap. Denver approved mushroom decriminalization. What the hell?

Were the voters high????? I realize the law doesn't make mushrooms legal, it simply takes the view that Denver won't prosecute people for mushrooms.

But the optics are horrible and will be on every talk show tomorrow. I don't think anyone bothered to oppose this actively because nobody that it had any chance of passing. Now the New York Times is sending out news alerts on this.

Ugh.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/0...agic-mushroom/

What optics? I don't get why do we care about negative optics from conservative news sources.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Holy crap. Denver approved mushroom decriminalization. What the hell?

Were the voters high????? I realize the law doesn't make mushrooms legal, it simply takes the view that Denver won't prosecute people for mushrooms.

But the optics are horrible and will be on every talk show tomorrow. I don't think anyone bothered to oppose this actively because nobody that it had any chance of passing. Now the New York Times is sending out news alerts on this.

Ugh.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/05/0...agic-mushroom/

Yeah but anyone who actually reads the bill would ask ‘why the fuck hasn’t every city passed this’. It’s really basic common sense.

[UrbanT]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Yeah but anyone who actually reads the bill would ask ‘why the fuck hasn’t every city passed this’. It’s really basic common sense.

Agreed. Voted for it and I wasn’t high. 😏

[twister244]

I can't help but digest this further to examine what are the potential implications for Denver's reputation? The passage of legal pot in 2014 definitely gave Denver a boost of being a "fun" "hip" town, which probably propelled folks to move here. Could the passage of this re-invigorate that image we have?

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by mishko27

What optics? I don't get why do we care about negative optics from conservative news sources.

hahaha THIIIIS

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

This race makes me glad I live in District 3 (right on the edge, the opposite side of our street is District 1)
Torres is the Chair of DHA and both she and Barela (who was the president of NEWSED) talk about the need for home ownership, apartment construction and improving the developer/community relationship. ...

As a fellow dist-3er I totally agree. I have interacted with both of them and they are both fairly level headed advocates for inclusive housing and offsetting the negative affects of gentrification and maintaining neighborhood diversity without decrying change or unnecessarily demonizing developers. Took me a bit to decide but I always liked Torres' style so she got my vote in the end.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

This race makes me glad I live in District 3 (right on the edge, the opposite side of our street is District 1)

Thanks for the feedback. That was generally my take-away impression.

Here's to schrooms

Originally Posted by UrbanT

Agreed. Voted for it and I wasn’t high. 😏

Soft-Hearted Hana by George Harrison

I ate it and at once my eyes could see you
No sooner had I ooped it down
l felt so far off from the ground I stood on

My legs they seemed to me like high-rise buildings
My head was high up in the sky
My skin the sun began to fry like bacon

I fell in love with my Soft-Hearted Hana
She entered right in through my heart
And now although we're miles apart
I still feel her

She lives beneath the crater in the meadow
She moves among the fruit and grain
You can meet her after heavy rain has fallen

[rds70]

The first building permits for the 2601 Alcott project have been submitted to the City:

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by rds70

The first building permits for the 2601 Alcott project have been submitted to the City:

Tessler is quite an interesting fellow. He owned property in Denver for four decades before he decided to develop Atelier at University Park at 2450 So University Blvd.

Now this:


Rendering courtesy OZ Architecture via DenverInfill

The only other project of this size that comes to mind is Holland Partner's Pivot/Union Station apartments which included Whole Foods.
Two-thirds of the units to be condos? Those things should sell like hotcakes.

Btw, I just checked and the 10-year T-Bill is sitting at (only) 2.47%; it's a great time to build anything but especially condos.

[BG918]

Has there been any discussion about the Smokestack 40 development at 40th & York? City council approved the rezoning. Includes 700 new housing units.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.den...velopment/amp/