DENVER | Main Development Thread #6 - Page 384

Denver · #**7661** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 1:09 AM**

Some news out of Cherry Creek. Part of the facade of the 250 Columbine hotel has been revealed and IMO it looks great. There is a contraction fence up at the 230 Fillmore St. office building and demo is under way across the street at 235 Fillmore.

TakeFive · #**7662** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 2:48 AM**

Halftime at the Pepsi Center. Seems like a rather sparse crowd tonight. Hmmm

Quote:

Originally Posted by corey

Above all, the economy is always the biggest factor in a presidential election.

Certainly a bad economy is not good news for the incumbent party ie Reagan and Clinton. A good economy can be a plus, depending.

I'm glad that the economy is good to you. Not everybody shares your perception. In politics perception is more important than reality.

It's not a national popularity contest. It's 50 different elections. The fact that the economies of Colorado and the left coast are doing well isn't key to the election. The fact that the economies of Utah, Texas, Alabama and Georgia are doing well doesn't lead me to believe they're suddenly going to turn blue. In Florida and North Carolina who gets the credit for a mostly good economy, the President's party or the Governor's party? The economic pictures of the battleground states I mentioned are more mixed. Those states plus Florida are the keys. Actually, Iowa's economy is good but I'd put it in the "lean red" if not "likely red" column. I have Colorado as a tossup for now.

I'm sure we'll be anxious to see how FiveThirtyEight puts the odds in September.

bunt_q · #**7663** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 4:57 AM**

I'm going to have to side with Corey on this one, I think TakeFive is biased by living in Arizona. It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where Hillary doesn't win handily in November. The question of whether the Dems also take the Senate is the better one. If they do, we might never see a Justice Garland. If the GOP delays confirmation for 9 months and then loses, I'd expect somebody far younger and more liberal to take his place. After all, in the words of Mitch McConnell, the voters will have spoken.

TakeFive · #**7664** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 5:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I'm going to have to side with Corey on this one, I think TakeFive is biased by living in Arizona. It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where Hillary doesn't win handily in November. The question of whether the Dems also take the Senate is the better one. If they do, we might never see a Justice Garland. If the GOP delays confirmation for 9 months and then loses, I'd expect somebody far younger and more liberal to take his place. After all, in the words of Mitch McConnell, the voters will have spoken.

Wait... you're saying the Dems would vote against Garland? Did you watch the video of Garland being appointed/introduced? The guy is a total class act, an impeccable appointment.

Where I happen to live has nothing to do with anything. Hope I'm wrong but I'm merely pointing out/playing the odds.

bunt_q · #**7665** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 6:06 AM**

No they wouldn't vote against him, of course not. Just pull the nomination. He's too old to be anybody's first choice. He's the compromise to force a vote. If he still doesn't get a vote, and a year later after an election there's an opportunity to put a 45 year old in that seat, you take it.

s.p.hansen · #**7666** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 6:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Wait... you're saying the Dems would vote against Garland? Did you watch the video of Garland being appointed/introduced? The guy is a total class act, an impeccable appointment.

Where I happen to live has nothing to do with anything. Hope I'm wrong but I'm merely pointing out/playing the odds.

Garland is a great guy and the GOP like him. The reason you don't keep him in play if they don't do their jobs and nominate him is to help them learn a lesson about doing their jobs and cooperating. If you don't cooperate and put the moderate in, there will be consequences.

WIGGLEWORTH · #**7667** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 7:34 AM**

Shouldn't the New Census data be out? Im curious. Where is Denver at... Population Wise?

CPVLIVE · #**7668** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 8:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Halftime at the Pepsi Center. Seems like a rather sparse crowd tonight. Hmmm

Blizzard conditions and 14 inches of snow will do that

Photo by AAron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post

rds70 · #**7669** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 12:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIGGLEWORTH

Shouldn't the New Census data be out? Im curious. Where is Denver at... Population Wise?

July 1, 2015:

Denver: 682,545, an 18,542 person increase from 2014.

The Denver CSA was at 3,418,876, a 72,777 person increase from 2014.

EngiNerd · #**7670** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 4:25 PM**

Adding to RDS's post, I made some quick spreadsheets from the Census CSA data sorted by percent gain from 2014-2015. Based on those population gain numbers, it really shouldn't be a surprise that there is a housing shortage.

RyanD · #**7671** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 4:31 PM**

Here are some aerials of the snow from my little slice of Soviet Russia Denver!

Downtown Denver looks so tiny from this vantage point.

Blizzard 2016 - 03 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr

Blizzard 2016 - 02 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr

Blizzard 2016 - 01 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr

Agent Orange · #**7672** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 5:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Adding to RDS's post, I made some quick spreadsheets from the Census CSA data sorted by percent gain from 2014-2015. Based on those population gain numbers, it really shouldn't be a surprise that there is a housing shortage.

Thanks for posting, that's very interesting. I'm curious whether Orlando or Houston are experiencing a housing shortage like we are. I recently moved here from Tampa, just sixty minutes down the road from metro Orlando and haven't heard any talk of a housing crunch.

Also, if the second half of the decade is similar to the first half, the Denver metro is on pace to grow by about 22% for 2010-2020. That's much lower than the rates of growth seen in metros like Atlanta, Raleigh, Austin, Phoenix or Vegas in the past two decades. To my knowledge, none of those cities saw an explosion in housing costs like this area currently is.

The Dirt · #**7673** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 5:13 PM**

Ryan, those are awesome shots! It's amazing how small all of our highrise districts look. Unfortunately, though, if this was Soviet Russia, those Lowry midrises would be twice as high, and they would stretch for miles in every direction until the urban landscape abruptly turns into farmland.

EnginNerd, looks like we gained 328,002 people (10.6% increase) in 5 years, which is pretty crazy. That's the equivalent of a 2nd Aurora being added to the metro.

DenverInfill · #**7674** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 5:26 PM**

From earlier this morning:

http://denverurbanism.com/2016/03/census-update-2016.html

balugajames · #**7675** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Unfortunately, though, if this was Soviet Russia, those Lowry midrises would be twice as high, and they would stretch for miles in every direction until the urban landscape abruptly turns into farmland.

Yep:

RyanD · #**7676** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 5:54 PM**

^ That's actually kind of beautiful IMO. Better than the 2010 era of commie blocks we are getting.

balugajames · #**7677** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanD

^ That's actually kind of beautiful IMO. Better than the 2010 era of commie blocks we are getting.

I agree that block is not too bad architecturally. It reminds me of the 2 30 store towers near Cherry Creek we are getting.

It is crazy how different a world it is there. Here is the rest of Saint Petersburg for perspective. I believe you can see the construction of the commi block above from this photo.

The Dirt · #**7678** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 6:52 PM**

The biggest problem with commie blocks is that their urban form sucks. They're basically arranged like strip malls and they're the east's answer to urban sprawl.
- ultra wide feeder streets provide access
- the buildings are usually set back far from the street and are surrounded by parking
- the buildings are all connected and create a giant wall of buildings (what bunt hates)
- there's no variety at the street level
- retail exists in more urban parts but mostly absent

However, despite all of this, the actual street life (i.e. the presence of humans instead of cars) is still way beyond anything you'd find in an equivalent US city. People are walking and are out and about a lot more due to poverty and lower car ownership despite the fairly crappy urban form.

Unfortunately, not much seems to be changing with new construction other than the buildings look more higher end.

RyanD · #**7679** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 7:03 PM**

Is that.... Transit in a median? I mean, that's a horrible model right RTD? Just like what you said?

Seeing this picture makes me think about what Arapahoe Square is going to look like though. Not as tall but it's going to have this crazy form unless we update our zoning. I'll have to drone that neighborhood here soon.

Agent Orange · #**7680** Posted **Mar 24, 2016, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanD

Seeing this picture makes me think about what Arapahoe Square is going to look like though. Not as tall but it's going to have this crazy form unless we update our zoning. I'll have to drone that neighborhood here soon.

Why would that be? Are we talking about setback requirements, or are we talking about (subjectively) inadequate design review? Sorry, I clearly need to research Denver zoning code.