DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

Can we all agree that the "induced demand" argument against highway expansion is utter bullshit?

There's a giant logical hole that seems to assume traffic would not appear without the road expansion.

The induced demanders should drive I-70 though through the mountains and tell me about how traffic never increases unless more lanes are added. This is the biggest bunch of crock I'm seeing being repeated on the regular.

I agree. By that reasoning, removing lanes from freeways should cause them to flow better. What this argument fails to take into consideration is population growth. Denver's population has grown like crazy since the early 90s, yet 270 is still 2 lanes in each direction, and choked all day. We need more lanes to keep up with population growth.

I grew up in KC and that's a very slow growth city. I remember in the 80s when they added a 3rd lane in each direction to I-35. It still flows fairly well, other than maybe some slow downs around 5 pm. But the population rises very slowly there.

[JB1530]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

you could also just ride your bike in the 100 degree heat!

lol, cars are never going away. so much dreaming going on.

speaking of cars going away though, what's this talk about larimer going car free i'm hearing?

Turning Larimer over to pedestrians and creating a real pedestrian square (as was Dana's original plan) was something we've heard from the public again and again since the beginning of our public outreach. We asked the question to the City and didn't hear 'no.' There's a lot involved in getting something like that through, but if we can demonstrate through the data that it won't totally destroy performance of the downtown traffic grid, there's a real possibility there. We're in the process of building a coalition with nearby stakeholders to further the conversation.

If you'd asked me a year ago whether it was even a possibility I'd have told you is wasn't. It's not a done deal now, but looks more real.

What do people here think of the idea?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Generally if an Uber driver does ten trips he's substituting for ten owner car trips so at the least they save parking space. Why do you find this such a burden?

Parking spaces are saved in you scenario- but there's also a drive who is adding to congestion by constantly driving around to pick up fares. Ergo, the driver is increasing congestion and putting wear and tear on public assets.

I like ridesharing a lot. It's a brilliant concept in monetizing stranded assets and allows a company to grown without having to invest huge amount in capital assets- great ROE for investors. It also is more efficient than the taxi system that it replaced. But, that doesn't mean that I don't think that local governments should tap those companies to offset the disruptions their business model brings in the short term. Uber/Lyft's business model relies on incurring massive losses until one or the other cries uncle and bows out. The surviving company will have total market share and will subsequently jack prices up to the point where profitability is ensured (and they can shit can the model's weak link- the drivers). Following that, consumers mobility options suddenly get a hell of lot more expensive and it would be nice to have other options in place to allow consumers to switch over if they prefer.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

Can we all agree that the "induced demand" argument against highway expansion is utter bullshit?

There's a giant logical hole that seems to assume traffic would not appear without the road expansion.

The induced demanders should drive I-70 though through the mountains and tell me about how traffic never increases unless more lanes are added. This is the biggest bunch of crock I'm seeing being repeated on the regular.

Candi is all about it and she's smart as a whip.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by JB1530

What do people here think of the idea?

Love it!

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Any updates on the proposed 38 story block 162 hotel?

[BG918]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Love it!

Same, there really is no "square" there now. Just between 14th and 15th though.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by BG918

Same, there really is no "square" there now. Just between 14th and 15th though.

Agreed - if not for DURA it could go all the way to 20th and be like Denver's version of the Pearl Street Mall - but alas, mid-20th century buildings like Tabor Center and Writer's Square fail to activate Larimer in any way that would justify this today. It would be a no-brainer to two-way convert the rest of the street though if it no longer goes through to Speer.

My other hope would be that perhaps the long-dormant idea of a Larimer Street tram could be explored again. I feel like this was a really popular point of discussion back when Auraria Campus Village was a new project, and since then I have basically heard crickets. There's certainly no reason a tram couldn't go through a pedestrian plaza - it happens all the time in Europe.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by JB1530

What do people here think of the idea?

I love the idea as well. Would Lawrence become a two-way? Personally I’d like to see Wynkoop Plaza happen first, but I’ll take both.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Parking spaces are saved in you scenario- but there's also a drive who is adding to congestion by constantly driving around to pick up fares. Ergo, the driver is increasing congestion and putting wear and tear on public assets.

The amount of disinformation out there is astounding but that's reflective of the world we live in, no?

Anybody driving around all day looking for fares is either stupid - that happens - has no clue what he/she should be doing and won't last long.

Let's say a driver picks up a trip from downtown or the airport out to Ken Caryl Ranch. Nice money but if one sits out there waiting for the next trip it might take long time. It's advisable to drive towards a denser mixed use area to find trips. Yes dead miles on a trip like that will add up but way out in the burbs, "what does it matter?" Point being most dead miles happen out in the suburbs where no one cares. Ken Caryl but one example but many trips out of downtown will go ~20 miles outside of downtown where nobody notices a few extra cars spread among the various roads. If they accumulate some dead miles getting back to busier areas... one might get a 'ping' within 2 or 3 minutes; the randomness (as a driver) amazes.

Take the analysis that has been done that's ballpark credible based on data in San Francisco and Seattle. Even the 'exaggerated' dead miles add anywhere from 1% to 1.5% to the overall miles driven. Again assuming that a lot of those dead miles are suburban then the hysteria is way over the top.

When I work a busy area I expect my next trip assignment before I drop off my current rider. That next trip may be one block away of maybe a quarter mile away. These algorithms are incredibly smart.

[Robert.hampton]

I also noticed in the east central neighborhood plan they included the idea to 'Study the feasibility of closing access to automobile through-traffic on 16th Avenue Between Broadway and City Park Esplanade' -- anyone know the idea there, likelihood of something happening? In theory I like the idea of 16th becoming a greenspace and dedicated bike pathway but reality makes me think it would just attract the druggery and vagrance from civic center.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The main unstated reason for moving agencies out of DC is to make conservative rural areas wealthier.

BLM was never going to come to Denver.

Oh true, that. But I'll take the jobs, even in Grand Junction. They add to the overall state tax base, which is good.

I know exactly what the agenda is with the BLM, but that would be same wherever it ended up. We will at least get the jobs.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

All I read from the great genius urbanists here is about how the housing struggle is real and we need to look after the poor people to make Denver great again. Never do I read anywhere about how we should actually pay our workers a living wage. To me it's astounding the main campaign issues are gentrification and homelessness while ensuring a minimum wage is met is totally ignored.

It is a forum dedicated to architecture, construction, development, and urbanity after all and not a political forum - we're not debating systemic changes or discussing bell hooks, nor are we organizing here for or against any kind of non-development-related political ideals. The only reason politics and inequality discussions surface here is because of housing costs and the supply and demand thereof - and the common belief amongst Denverites that increased prices are because of induced demand and not because of increased demand and reduced supply (i.e. because of people who want to keep Denver as it is, or keep their view, or who believe that by not allowing things to get built near them that maybe people will move somewhere else, or people who yell endlessly about poor people and renters being pushed out by "rich people" but who also refuse to allow apartments or more housing or shelters to be built)

And so we mostly talk about construction and get excited about new potential skyscrapers here, because some of the people here work in the field and many of us who don't are just interested in architecture or urban design or maybe just played too much Sim City... It's not that no one here cares about inequality, it's that those discussions are topics for an off-topic or politics thread, or for another forum dedicated to such things.

So yes, wage inequality is serious and important to talk about, but it's way outside the scope of why most of us are here. And if you're really interested in changing it, there are some of us that are more likely to be open and helpful, but yelling into the ether on here won't get you anywhere (we could have a discussion about how the American left's abandonment of unions and the insistence on following deconstructionist methods has weakened its ability to organize, plan, or communicate effectively and how being the loudest person in the room yelling about your repression will certainly get you noticed on this website or in a fight against a highway expansion, it most definitely is not the best way to convince a majority of people you are right or to change things in any substantial way. see also: being rude here or stopping I-70)

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

There are many negative effects. We all desire better public transportation, but that's going to be problematic when all of these scenarios you describe lead to people not using public transport.

Most people utilizing ride-share can't get to their doctor etc etc using public transit. Most riders are suburban; they can't walk to what they need.

https://www.govtech.com/fs/transport...p-Felt-It.html

“There was a degree of TNC... increase as well,” said Buchanan, “But really, our survey seemed to indicate that the private car is the most competitive with transit.”

Buchanan said that while ride-hailing services like Uber or Lyft are often blamed for siphoning ridership away from public transit, they take a backseat to personal vehicles in most locales.

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

Uber and Lyft are part of this new economy that apparently means we won't have to pay our workers a living wage anymore.

Full-timers
should make a least $3,000 a month. Full-timers who know what they're doing should make over $4,000 a month. Pros can make $5,000 to $8,000 a month.

I forgot to mention that many who choose to drive are like me - retired. The extra money is a godsend. Those who work Friday, Saturday and Sunday should make $450 to $600 over the weekend.

The objective is to make $20 an hour or more. Some days it might be $15 an hour; other days $25-$30 an hour.

While ride-sharing might be an easy-entry job which for some might be a life-saver there's also a learning curve (duh) and like the restaurant or other similar jobs there's high turnover. Many don't put in the effort to either learn their craft or the necessary time. It's like any other opportunity that's out there. You get out of something what you put into it.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Oh true, that. But I'll take the jobs, even in Grand Junction. They add to the overall state tax base, which is good.

I know exactly what the agenda is with the BLM, but that would be same wherever it ended up. We will at least get the jobs.

Speaking of their agenda and being a business-practical guy (I go issue by issue) are you aware of any terrible consequences as a result of decisions made under the new administration?

Speaking of Urban Politics

The new Denver City Council took their maiden voyage last night. Our newly minted democratic socialist - you can call me an anarchist - Candi CdeBaca was the only vote against DIA's need to expand Pena Blvd. Chris Hinds abstained saying he wasn't up to speed on the issue - that's fair.

Final vote: 11-1-1 in favor of honoring the extreme value of DIA to the economy of the region and really, the whole state.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The new Denver City Council took their maiden voyage last night. Our newly minted democratic socialist - you can call me an anarchist - Candi CdeBaca was the only vote against DIA's need to expand Pena Blvd. Chris Hinds abstained saying he wasn't up to speed on the issue - that's fair.

Final vote: 11-1-1 in favor of honoring the extreme value of DIA to the economy of the region and really, the whole state.

CdeBaca calls herself a "Democratic Socialist," perhaps liking the European type image that the term often brings, making people think of Sweden, or Germany, or France, and thinking life there ain't so bad. Any country and political system that brought us Ikea, can't be too bad!!


But if you look further at her own words, they sound much more akin to core Marxism-Leninism. Per the Denver Post, she describes her view as follows:

CdeBaca said during a debate this past spring that the nation is in “late-phase capitalism,” that she believes in community ownership of “land, labor and resources,” and that she’s excited to “usher it in by any means necessary.”

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/1...tic-socialist/

Reads like it was plucked out of Das Kapital and her words would be completely at home in 1919 Russia. She probably figured that running as a Marxist-Leninist might have made things a bit tougher against Albus Brooks, so "Democratic Socialist" it is!

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The main unstated reason for moving agencies out of DC is to make conservative rural areas wealthier.

BLM was never going to come to Denver.

Oh really?

https://www.gardner.senate.gov/imo/m...i%20Letter.pdf

Lakewood, CO will be getting 58 positions in this reorg while GJ gets 27. So ultimately the Front Range ends up benefiting more even in this win for GJ. All of Colorado wins- but the Front Range wins more. No wonder Polis is happy.

[iNfill]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Oh true, that. But I'll take the jobs, even in Grand Junction. They add to the overall state tax base, which is good.

I know exactly what the agenda is with the BLM, but that would be same wherever it ended up. We will at least get the jobs.

Only 50 jobs will be added to CO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-cor...ving-out-west/

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Oh really?

https://www.gardner.senate.gov/imo/m...i%20Letter.pdf

Lakewood, CO will be getting 58 positions in this reorg while GJ gets 27. .

Wow that was quite the high profile process to move.......27 jobs. I bet Boise and Salt Lake are up in arms after losing out.....

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

CdeBaca calls herself a "Democratic Socialist," perhaps liking the European type image that the term often brings, making people think of Sweden, or Germany, or France, and thinking life there ain't so bad. Any country and political system that brought us Ikea, can't be too bad!!


But if you look further at her own words, they sound much more akin to core Marxism-Leninism. Per the Denver Post, she describes her view as follows:

CdeBaca said during a debate this past spring that the nation is in “late-phase capitalism,” that she believes in community ownership of “land, labor and resources,” and that she’s excited to “usher it in by any means necessary.”

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/1...tic-socialist/

Reads like it was plucked out of Das Kapital and her words would be completely at home in 1919 Russia. She probably figured that running as a Marxist-Leninist might have made things a bit tougher against Albus Brooks, so "Democratic Socialist" it is!

Yeah, I had the same thoughts when I read that article. European style Dem Socialism (which we already have bits and pieces of) makes sense to me. But what she said was scary. So, does she think Cubans have a great way of life??? I've fairly liberal, but hells no!