DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by bcp

Denver City Council may be losing it's damn mind...or just being a weather-vane - clearly they don't care about affordability:

1 - a SINGLE project used the no parking exemption for small lots - a few are on the books (scattered about) and now they want to amend / kill the zoning code.

2 - a few dozen projects have gone up with small courtyard sidewalks - ALL have sold out. A few complaints and time to redo the code...don't the sales number prove that it's what the constituents want?

3 - Areas of Change / Areas of Stability - isn't this the WHOLE IDEA? City close and near transit is where density goes. Period. That's why we did the planning and integrated it with FastTracks.


MAN THE EFF UP DCC and let denver become a dense city in a few spots...stop putting a few (or any) NIMBY's opinion above the market or developers.

Oh - good job Arapaho Square...assuming that no / low parking plan will stay in place?

I've spoken with a city council person on this "moratorium" and I wouldn't get too wound up about it. All that's been done thus far is commitment to study the issue and consider revisions.

I think the most likely result is the Garden Court form is retained but modified: require a garden.. or a court.. as the name suggests and not just a sidewalk that wouldn't meet anyone's definition of either.

Also, recall the issue is the Garden Court form in particular neighborhoods, not necessarily everywhere. Thus, they could also retain the current form exactly as it is in many neighborhoods (no reason to ban it in area zoned for apartments or other forms similar to Garden Court anyways) but restrict or modify it for other neighborhoods.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bcp

Denver City Council may be losing it's damn mind...or just being a weather-vane - clearly they don't care about affordability:

3 - Areas of Change / Areas of Stability - isn't this the WHOLE IDEA? City close and near transit is where density goes. Period. That's why we did the planning and integrated it with FastTracks.

How many people consider $600,000 and up TH's affordable?
When I think of affordable housing I think of THIS.

I have no problem with "Areas of Change / Areas of Stability". I would be disappointed if areas of stability have 100-year old nice homes scraped for more $600-750,000 TH's however.

Originally Posted by bcp

2 - a few dozen projects have gone up with small courtyard sidewalks - ALL have sold out. A few complaints and time to redo the code...don't the sales number prove that it's what the constituents want?

I would certainly think so.

Originally Posted by bcp

MAN THE EFF UP DCC and let denver become a dense city in a few spots...stop putting a few (or any) NIMBY's opinion above the market or developers.

Speaking of constituents, isn't that how DCC gets elected? You think they should be beholden to developers that presumably don't live in their district? That may be a bridge too far.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by bcp

Denver City Council may be losing it's damn mind...or just being a weather-vane - clearly they don't care about affordability:

1 - a SINGLE project used the no parking exemption for small lots - a few are on the books (scattered about) and now they want to amend / kill the zoning code.

2 - a few dozen projects have gone up with small courtyard sidewalks - ALL have sold out. A few complaints and time to redo the code...don't the sales number prove that it's what the constituents want?

3 - Areas of Change / Areas of Stability - isn't this the WHOLE IDEA? City close and near transit is where density goes. Period. That's why we did the planning and integrated it with FastTracks.


MAN THE EFF UP DCC and let denver become a dense city in a few spots...stop putting a few (or any) NIMBY's opinion above the market or developers.

Oh - good job Arapaho Square...assuming that no / low parking plan will stay in place?

A few, probably unwelcome NIMBY perspectives:

1- I think the city is realizing that, from the perspective of most constituents, there is a serious parking crisis evolving in a lot of neighborhoods. There are solutions, such as the parking districts in Bluebird or Baker, but those are long and expensive processes. The proliferation of these new units is happening faster than the city can react.

2- Name a development in Denver that hasn't sold out? I dont think that helps your argument whatsoever. I could put a pile of flaming dog turd with a side of rotten Indian food for sale in jeff park and someone would buy it.

In my mind there seems to be a pretty good argument that these new 'garden court'developments will disconnect residents from their surroundings and ultimately makes streets less safe. I think this is well within the bound of city regulations and zoning. Certainly the current zoning did not anticipate this would be the results of allowing garden courts.

Ultimately these two issues have very little to do with density or affordability because, as you note, it involves a proportionally small number of units. The state needs to address construction defects to tackle density and affordability. But I think the city council is well within its right to try and put the current developments on a smarter track, because while regulating them wont seriously affect denisty andaffordability, it will cretainly address quality of life issues at a localized level.

[TakeFive]

"Police: Homeless mini camps along Speer Boulevard not breaking laws"
POSTED 6:00 PM, JULY 27, 2016, BY JULIE HAYDEN - Fox31 Denver

DENVER -- Overflowing grocery carts and wagons, sleeping bags and clothes in the trees.

Mini homeless camps are springing up along Denver’s Speer Boulevard.

People who call themselves "travelers” told us it’s in part because of the crackdown on problem transients on the 16th Street Mall.

They said Denver Police enforce the curfew law and make them leave every night but they come back every morning.

They said more homeless shelters won’t make a difference because they are living on the streets by choice. They also said the easy availability of marijuana and illegal drugs is another draw.

Police said the mini camps are not breaking any laws as long as they are not blocking sidewalks.

Well at least they aren't harassing convention tourists on the 16th Street Mall when they're here.

I have mixed feelings about these "travelers,” but while I never went Full Monty or Full Hippie I was a bit of a Flower Child.

Denver needs to continue to communicate that it intends to NOT be the most congenial "homeless-by-choice," 'travelers'-friendly kind of place. It will solve a large share of the problem and keep it from escalating further.

[comoneymaker]

How much longer till we got steel beams at 1144 Fifteenth Street?

[Zmapper]

Where is the organizing!!??

We all know that Denver is staring down two very destructive proposals, one that forces parking on small builders and another that will effectively outlaw family-sized townhomes. From my vantage point, I see plenty of support for both of these awful measures, but little organized opposition with no clear alternative vision.

What little opposition I see is very factually obsessed but has a very limited appeal to mainstream Denverites; if the general public does read something like this, they're likely thinking that "This transplant claims to know my life better than me." This type of message just won't connect.

By virtue of posting or lurking here, you all are very passionate about the future of cities, and y'all are needed to be leaders against these backwards-looking proposals. However, by virtue of posting or lurking here, we are not the best messengers; average Denverites and council know what we are going to say, and can easily dismiss us in favor of the mainstream view.

What we all need to do as abundant building leaders is to develop a theme that appeals to Denverites that are more concerned about raising a family than watching tower cranes be raised and gets them to buy into our theme. Ultimately, what wins us support is when we can get people to say that "I'm a nurse/accountant/middle school soccer coach and I support townhomes I can afford and letting small builders build without parking."

How will y'all get there?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

If these paths were along the lines of what we see in Stapleton, then I wouldn't have as big a problem with it. Trouble is, not only are these walks poorly designed and disconnected, but they also aren't truly public.

I don't have the time or energy to launch into a full dissertation about the topic, but it stems from my general distaste for Privately Owned Public Spaces. Part of what I have always loved about good urban neighborhoods is that the line between public and private spaces is well defined by the built environment and the zero-lot-line. In other words, if there is space between the buildings that isn't an obvious courtyard or loading dock, then it's public and anyone is welcome there.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/...-owned-public-space-cities-direct-action is a decent place to start on this subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/nyregi...-privately-owned-public-spaces.html?_r=0 as well. There's certainly a lot more out there on this subject too, I just don't particularly feel like digging for it right now.

In the case of these residential neighborhoods, I wouldn't so much be concerned about security guards kicking people out, as much as I would be concerned about the opposite... a lack of eyes on the street as a result of far too many private walks. I also dislike the inefficiency of redundant walks that oftentimes only serve one half of one property, often with a privacy fence and ANOTHER property's private walk right next to it (this is certainly not an efficient way to stack townhomes into a block). Not to mention it takes pedestrian activity and active edges off the streets we all share. If I wanted my neighborhood to be carved into little private gated Bantustans, I would just go live in Rock Creek or Highlands Ranch. That's not what makes an urban neighborhood so attractive (at least to me).

You're totally missing why these things happen, in this, and your last post. On your previous post - I'm assuming you've never done a subdivision. Or it least it doesn't sound like you have. And on this post - somebody has to own the ground. It's hard to do shared ground without an association. And if you have an association, you get sued. You have fantastic academic sounding ideas, like most architects, but they just don't work in the real world we have in front of us. You of all people should know that developers art building crap because they want to, they are building crap because to maximize density within the framework we have, that's all you can do. The answer isn't a moratorium - The answer is to fix the damn condo issue. Until then, good design just doesn't matter.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

By virtue of posting or lurking here, you all are very passionate about the future of cities, and y'all are needed to be leaders against these backwards-looking proposals. However, by virtue of posting or lurking here, we are not the best messengers; average Denverites and council know what we are going to say, and can easily dismiss us in favor of the mainstream view.

What we all need to do as abundant building leaders is to develop a theme that appeals to Denverites that are more concerned about raising a family than watching tower cranes be raised and gets them to buy into our theme. Ultimately, what wins us support is when we can get people to say that "I'm a nurse/accountant/middle school soccer coach and I support townhomes I can afford and letting small builders build without parking."

How will y'all get there?

There are a few of us here that do take it seriously, and do try our hardest to reach out to both regular people and to members of the city council and the city government. I personally have had in-depth conversations with both city council members and DHA representatives about the importance of density, transit, and fighting against NIMBYism. I know that there are other people involved in various organizations and groups, like Ken and the Denver Urbanists meetups...

However most of the forum would rather continue to complain about the minutiae of every new rendering, or how there isn't enough retail, or too much parking, or how X city or Y city or Z city is better, or how they could build something greater and more amazing because they know better than everyone else, etc. etc. etc. It's tiresome and useless and about as helpful to building a better Denver as the blind boosterism that they abhor.

My advice would be to not look here for support or encouragement for actual boots-on-the-ground urbanism, because you'll just walk away disappointed. If you want to hear how expensive it is to buy right now and how ugly the facade on some new construction is, this is your place, but if you actually want to discuss serious ways to persuade the public to support your ideals, don't expect anything positive here.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

There are a few of us here that do take it seriously, and do try our hardest to reach out to both regular people and to members of the city council and the city government. I personally have had in-depth conversations with both city council members and DHA representatives about the importance of density, transit, and fighting against NIMBYism. I know that there are other people involved in various organizations and groups, like Ken and the Denver Urbanists meetups...

However most of the forum would rather continue to complain about the minutiae of every new rendering, or how there isn't enough retail, or too much parking, or how X city or Y city or Z city is better, or how they could build something greater and more amazing because they know better than everyone else, etc. etc. etc. It's tiresome and useless and about as helpful to building a better Denver as the blind boosterism that they abhor.

My advice would be to not look here for support or encouragement for actual boots-on-the-ground urbanism, because you'll just walk away disappointed. If you want to hear how expensive it is to buy right now and how ugly the facade on some new construction is, this is your place, but if you actually want to discuss serious ways to persuade the public to support your ideals, don't expect anything positive here.

Both of you make good but difficult points. It is surprising that most of our peer cities have at least one YIMBY type organization, but so far (to my knowledge) nothing has sprung up here.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bcp

How do you know this won't seriously impact density and affordability? More regulation at this point always does,

How is "quality of life issues at a localized level" measured? And what is that?

To answer the last question first, how about seeking input from the constituents.

With respect to the 1st question, the number of properties and units involved here is about as impactful on affordability as a flea on an elephant's ass. There's a number of ways to address affordability issues.

At the top of the list is why you all ignore bunt when he gives you the keys to the magic kingdom. It may not be a fresh topic but fixing the (condo) construction defects mess is Job One.

Second, there's still plenty of land and opportunity around downtown Denver and beyond to develop 'designated' affordable and more affordable housing.between RiNo, Five Points, LoHi and areas along East Colfax, South Broadway, South Federal, along the A Line, B Line, G Line, W Line, SW Line and R Line.

Lastly trim $50 Billion annually from DOD, enact additional welfare reform, etc., and raise the Federal fuel tax. On the other side of the ledger secure senior care (mostly Medicare), increase transportation and infrastructure spending by $50 Billion annually, increase HUD's budget to include block grants to states and let them decide among Section 8, additional affordable/sustainable housing etc. For starters in other words, just do the common sense things.

[comoneymaker]

Anyone else seen this?

http://www.earthcam.com/client/kiewit/

[comoneymaker]

RFP to be submitted in 2017.

[DenverInfill]

There is a YIMBY Denver coalition in the works. If anyone is interested in participating, message me.

[ejwill04]

BusinessDen is reporting that Unico is proposing an eight-story mixed use building on Wynkoop St filling up the parking lot butting up against Cherry Creek. It's great to see so many of the smaller parking lots in LoDo see proposals!

BusinessDen
Unico plans eight-story LoDo project along Cherry Creek
BURL ROLETT JULY 29, 2016
http://www.businessden.com/2016/07/29/unico-plans-eight-story-lodo-project-along-cherry-creek/

[TakeFive]

Friday Follies

"Public invited to offer opinions about replacing tiles on 16th Street Mall"
JULY 28, 2016 BY DAVE YOUNG - Fox31 Denver

The mall is showing its age with 400,000 granite pavers installed on the pedestrian walkway in 1982 slowly crumbling away, in part because of Denver's harsh winter weather.

It has become a $1 million a year maintenance and repair job for RTD.

"They're rerouting the buses because of working on the pavers, and it goes on constantly and it seems a ridiculous waste of money," said Judy Allen, who lives near the mall.

Did anyone attend either of yesterday's two meetings or fill out a RTD questionnaire? Sometimes touchy about historice buildings I have no symathy for Historic Denver with this.

Historic Denver is fighting any changes to the original design, saying it's a unified work of art.

"The pavers are slick and individuals living downtown have fallen down many times on them," Jim McNally said.

‘Travelers’ in Denver come and go as stowaways on trains"
JULY 28, 2016, BY JULIE HAYDEN - Fox31 Denver

One of the locations where the travelers get on and off trains is on a popular bike path just west of downtown.

YouTube video taken by a young man hopping the train there shows him crawling through a hole in the fence, then jumping on board a train as it slowly moves out of Denver.

Nearby residents who use the bike path say the train hopping is something of an open secret.

Nobody said the 'travelers' were not inventive.

"Denver hotels: Occupancy growth is slowing..."
Jul 27, 2016 by Ed Sealover - Denver Business Journal

The pipeline of hotels has ramped up significantly as of late, however. Eight hotels with a combined 1,557 guest rooms opened in the Denver area in 2015 alone,

And 13 hotels with a cumulative 1,515 rooms — including the already operating Hyatt Regency Aurora-Denver Conference Center and the soon-to-debut Halcyon Hotel Cherry Creek— are slated to come online this year.

This is a metro view but given the specific numbers for downtown as well is why there's likely to be a pause on larger new hotel projects.

"Developer withdraws plan for Greenwood Village light-rail station project to gather input"
Jul 28, 2016 by Molly Armbrister - Denver Business Journal

Alberta Development Partners has withdrawn its master development plan for a transit-oriented development at Orchard Station in Greenwood Village, less than three weeks after submitting it, the company confirmed Thursday.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

To answer the last question first, how about seeking input from the constituents.

With respect to the 1st question, the number of properties and units involved here is about as impactful on affordability as a flea on an elephant's ass. There's a number of ways to address affordability issues.

At the top of the list is why you all ignore bunt when he gives you the keys to the magic kingdom. It may not be a fresh topic but fixing the (condo) construction defects mess is Job One.

Second, there's still plenty of land and opportunity around downtown Denver and beyond to develop 'designated' affordable and more affordable housing.between RiNo, Five Points, LoHi and areas along East Colfax, South Broadway, South Federal, along the A Line, B Line, G Line, W Line, SW Line and R Line.

Lastly trim $50 Billion annually from DOD, enact additional welfare reform, etc., and raise the Federal fuel tax. On the other side of the ledger secure senior care (mostly Medicare), increase transportation and infrastructure spending by $50 Billion annually, increase HUD's budget to include block grants to states and let them decide among Section 8, additional affordable/sustainable housing etc. For starters in other words, just do the common sense things.

The reality is that condos (on the resale market) are not flying off the shelf here in Denver with wages and affordability what it is. I'm sure that's not lost on developers. There is just not a huge percentage of renters who are ready, willing, and able. If you don't have 20% down, it's pretty clear it is significantly cheaper to rent. And that is with 3.5% interest... There's more to the condo issue than insurance rates.

Look up sales during the last condo boom. I bet a significant portion of those were FHA or 0% down- 100 LTV

With that being said, I am in favor of any measure that makes it easier for condos to be developed while still offering consumer protections from shoddy work

[Fritzdude]

Nice little blog entry over at http://denver-cityscape.com/ regarding a 7 story building on the Cherry Creek side of the river in LoDo..

I was wondering when these prime lots might turn into something soon.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Knew something was up, there! Saw them at least twice drilling core samples this past winter from our window at Acme...Hope the residential component are condos:-)

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Look up sales during the last condo boom. I bet a significant portion of those were FHA or 0% down- 100 LTV

With that being said, I am in favor of any measure that makes it easier for condos to be developed while still offering consumer protections from shoddy work

Well the last condo/townhome boom I was involved in, Writer-built units of 1100 SF - 1400 SF w/ double car garages and brick facades in front in Cherry Creek School District ran $95,000 to about $125,000 with the ones on the west side of the reservoir selling for about 15% more than those in Aurora. It was typical at the time to offer FHA Insurance although Writer Homes often appealed to empty nesters and people trading in with equity who would mostly use conventional financing. For less expensive condos, yes FHA insurance was the popular option. They didn't offer any 0% down that I recall but 3-5 percent down was available.

The problem with the 'lawyer lobby' is that they want an easy peasy way to sue larger developers for Big Paydays for often unsubstantial items. Not sure I've ever seen a single family residence that was built perfectly but who wants to sue one home at a time unless it's falling apart?

It's up to the voters I guess and if they wait for a solid Republican majority they may end up with a lot worse deal than what has been on the table for the taking. When people are unreasonable then others will be happy to get even when the shoe is on the other foot. Be careful what you wish for in-other-words.

[TakeFive]

Okay...I'm impressed

All photos courtesy Downtown Denver Partnership via twitter.com/downtowndenver

Courtesy of Denver Post

Props to the Colorado Rockies for winning 8 of their last 9 games