DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

With Respect to Growth Boundaries

Growth boundaries are only good in theory or on paper, but not in reality.

Given that Denver is a relatively new (growth) place, all growth limitations do is promote 'elitism' and unaffordability. I'm not necessarily fond of sprawl but it clearly helps with affordability. It goes primarily to land costs.

It was a noteworthy visit from Pres Biden last week when he came to the desert to promote TSMC's increasing investment commitment from $12 billion to $40 billion for their microproccessing Fabs as a result of the $250 billion CHIPS and Science Bill passed recently.

Also interesting is that the location is in the opposite corner of Phoenix metro as the traditional Intel crowd location. But there's lots of land available for the additional $billions of investment needed for TSMC suppliers and nearby population growth.

[mhays]

Says you.

If infill is easy enough, housing can stay very affordable inside growth boundaries. Done right, only land will get more expensive.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by mhays

Says you.

If infill is easy enough, housing can stay very affordable inside growth boundaries. Done right, only land will get more expensive.

As land gets more expensive, any maximum bound in zoning - notwithstanding ease of permitting, construction, and loans - requires more expensive units to recoup costs. Ergo, even if infill is “easy,” higher land costs can be a factor in increasing housing costs.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

As land gets more expensive, any maximum bound in zoning - notwithstanding ease of permitting, construction, and loans - requires more expensive units to recoup costs. Ergo, even if infill is “easy,” higher land costs can be a factor in increasing housing costs.

Not any maximum bound on zoning. Any maximum bound that constrains market supply. Or at least the supply that would be needed to deliver housing at the same price on more expensive land.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not any maximum bound on zoning. Any maximum bound that constrains market supply. Or at least the supply that would be needed to deliver housing at the same price on more expensive land.

You’re right. Zoning is one but many constraints on market supply.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Says you.

If infill is easy enough, housing can stay very affordable inside growth boundaries. Done right, only land will get more expensive.

Feels like an oxymoron or at the least wishful thinking.

One thing that the Pandemic taught us is that (sooner or later) many will want their own place with space even if it's a townhome with backyard space.

Input the artificial and the marketplace changes as to what is viable or at least affordable - on a relative basis.

At least in Denver's case there's no shortage of otherwise worthless semi-arid land so why constrict it? All of the current ongoing 'sprawl' includes lots of open space. But sprawl in Denver is a bit humorous and tame compared to cities in the South and Southwest.

California is headed in the wrong direction and many more will leave the state with the highest taxes yet inability to solve many of the most basic needs of humanity.

[twalm]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Feels like an oxymoron or at the least wishful thinking.

One thing that the Pandemic taught us is that (sooner or later) many will want their own place with space even if it's a townhome with backyard space.

Input the artificial and the marketplace changes as to what is viable or at least affordable - on a relative basis.

At least in Denver's case there's no shortage of otherwise worthless semi-arid land so why constrict it? All of the current ongoing 'sprawl' includes lots of open space. But sprawl in Denver is a bit humorous and tame compared to cities in the South and Southwest.

What are you smoking??

That "worthless" land is or could be full of native flora and fauna that is worth preserving! In addition, sprawl usually is a lot of single family zoning that is MORE expensive to maintain for cities and counties and much worse for the environment because you need more cars, more heating, and more cooling.

That and I am sure that profit margins on dumb single family homes are thinner that moderately dense (not skyscrapers) mixed use development.

Unpopular opinion: Yards and space are a luxury not a necessity. The natural world is worth preserving over sprawl.

[twalm]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With Respect to Growth Boundaries

Growth boundaries are only good in theory or on paper, but not in reality.

Given that Denver is a relatively new (growth) place, all growth limitations do is promote 'elitism' and unaffordability.

This isn't Manhattan or Vancouver! The Denver Metro Area as-is has essentially limitless room to build affordable multi-family housing without additional sprawl. The issue is zoning.

[i4isoar]

Originally Posted by laniroj

There is a place. Go to the clerk and recorder's office, they should be able to grab the recorded mylars for the site development plan or they'll already have them available electronically for you to look at.

Thanks for the advice, I might try that out one of these days.

Now, re the "Growth" Discussion:

Here's some of my thoughts on this issue: there are "good" kinds of growth and "bad" kinds of growth, and it seems to me that "anti-growth" people usually are the kind of people who can't tell the difference.

I think "bad growth" means the uncontrolled sprawl of suburban areas, which has negative impacts like destroying the local environment (even seemingly empty grasslands can still be home to native fauna and flora), encouraging dependence on cars, increasing commute times, and also increases wildfire risk by putting more people in the Wildland-Urban Interface (case-in-point, the Marshall Fire).

The kind of "growth" that I support is densification within current urban boundaries, growing up rather than out. When I look at the map of how sprawling the Denver area is, I wonder if we could easily accommodate three or four times as many people here if every neighborhood, from Brighton to Highlands Ranch, were as densely-packed and built up as the area around Union Station.

With that in mind, here's my "wish-list" for some of the policies I would love to see implemented:

• Eliminate single-family zoning in its entirety.
• Eliminate any and all height maximums. In fact, I would go further and introduce legislation establishing height minimums in some areas.
• Eliminate parking minimums, similar to the above.
• Increase the frequency (and reliability) of RTD services; restore all pre-pandemic services and introduce new services as well. This can be funded at least in-part by increasing DMV fees, highway tolls, and fines for traffic offenses.
• Offer free RTD passes to property-owners (to be funded in-whole or in-part by an increase in property taxes).
• Disincentivize property-owners from keeping properties vacant and sitting empty. If a person owns more than 1 home in the Metro Area, they should at least rent out that 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th...) home, thereby increasing the supply of available housing.
• Disincentivize water-intensive lawns (maybe through a "water tax" based on square-footage of a lawn) and incentivize more xeriscaping (maybe by exempting xeriscaped gardens from the aforementioned "water tax").
• Offer incentives for developers to build more housing, parks, amenities, etc. on top of interstates and railroads, like the "Central-70" project in Denver (built on top of I-70), or "The Squaire" in Frankfurt (built on top of a train station). I'm sure that if you added up the land surface area of all the railroads and highways in Denver, you would easily find at least a few square miles of land ripe for development.

I know some of these goals are a little lofty and unrealistic with the current political climate, and would definitely outrage a lot of NIMBYs, but I think that all of the above would help address many of the issues the Front Range has.

[mishko27]

Originally Posted by i4isoar

Thanks for the advice, I might try that out one of these days.

Now, re the "Growth" Discussion:

Here's some of my thoughts on this issue: there are "good" kinds of growth and "bad" kinds of growth, and it seems to me that "anti-growth" people usually are the kind of people who can't tell the difference.

I think "bad growth" means the uncontrolled sprawl of suburban areas, which has negative impacts like destroying the local environment (even seemingly empty grasslands can still be home to native fauna and flora), encouraging dependence on cars, increasing commute times, and also increases wildfire risk by putting more people in the Wildland-Urban Interface (case-in-point, the Marshall Fire).

The kind of "growth" that I support is densification within current urban boundaries, growing up rather than out. When I look at the map of how sprawling the Denver area is, I wonder if we could easily accommodate three or four times as many people here if every neighborhood, from Brighton to Highlands Ranch, were as densely-packed and built up as the area around Union Station.

With that in mind, here's my "wish-list" for some of the policies I would love to see implemented:

• Eliminate single-family zoning in its entirety.
• Eliminate any and all height maximums. In fact, I would go further and introduce legislation establishing height minimums in some areas.
• Eliminate parking minimums, similar to the above.
• Increase the frequency (and reliability) of RTD services; restore all pre-pandemic services and introduce new services as well. This can be funded at least in-part by increasing DMV fees, highway tolls, and fines for traffic offenses.
• Offer free RTD passes to property-owners (to be funded in-whole or in-part by an increase in property taxes).
• Disincentivize property-owners from keeping properties vacant and sitting empty. If a person owns more than 1 home in the Metro Area, they should at least rent out that 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th...) home, thereby increasing the supply of available housing.
• Disincentivize water-intensive lawns (maybe through a "water tax" based on square-footage of a lawn) and incentivize more xeriscaping (maybe by exempting xeriscaped gardens from the aforementioned "water tax").
• Offer incentives for developers to build more housing, parks, amenities, etc. on top of interstates and railroads, like the "Central-70" project in Denver (built on top of I-70), or "The Squaire" in Frankfurt (built on top of a train station). I'm sure that if you added up the land surface area of all the railroads and highways in Denver, you would easily find at least a few square miles of land ripe for development.

I know some of these goals are a little lofty and unrealistic with the current political climate, and would definitely outrage a lot of NIMBYs, but I think that all of the above would help address many of the issues the Front Range has.

I would GLADLY pay 10% more in property taxes if that meant 10 minute headways on the light / commuter rail, as well as service running into the night. Honestly - if there was late night light rail, that could save me more than 10% of my property taxes in around 3 of the $150 drunken Lyft rides

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by twalm

That "worthless" land is or could be full of native flora and fauna that is worth preserving! In addition, sprawl usually is a lot of single family zoning that is MORE expensive to maintain for cities and counties and much worse for the environment because you need more cars, more heating, and more cooling.

Unpopular opinion: Yards and space are a luxury not a necessity. The natural world is worth preserving over sprawl.

It's one thing to know "Urbanism" principles (which has its merits) but quite another to be familiar with the metro landscape.

Good guess that most of Aurora has much, much more affordable living options including costs of housing and costs of all the various 'government' taxes which is citizens paying for what they want. For my money, I'm delighted that people still have the freedom to choose their living preferences.

Over the last 20 years most development has been on modest or even small lots and is much more efficient use of land than Denver's own suburbs built from the 1950's forward.

Additionally, these new developments come with lots of open space as this doubles as flood control and generally uses a natural habitat including coyotes running free looking for rabbits and small dogs.

If you're familiar with Lone Tree... this is an area of impressive urban-suburban density. Check out the east side master plan, which is just getting going, and most single family homes will be on small lots among mixed-use development so that residents can bike or walk to lots of places - or bike for miles and miles.

Originally Posted by twalm

This isn't Manhattan or Vancouver! The Denver Metro Area as-is has essentially limitless room to build affordable multi-family housing without additional sprawl. The issue is zoning.

Actually, this is inaccurate.

There's a scarcity of metro area land available for development in the 'built-out areas' and especially for denser multifamily development.

Take Arapahoe County east of the Reservoir or Parker Rd. Aurora built lots of urban-suburban density starting in the 1980's that was frowned upon at that time. Unincorporated Arapahoe County much of which is now a part of Centennial was also built with a lot of urban-suburban density.

All current and ongoing new development is generally mixed-use with a high degree of land use efficiency including open space.

Even within Denver, check out the Indian Creek neighborhood (which is actually in Unincorporated Arapahoe County) and you'll find impressive urban-suburban density. It's south of Mississippi and east of Quebec St.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by i4isoar

Now, re the "Growth" Discussion:

Here's some of my thoughts on this issue: there are "good" kinds of growth and "bad" kinds of growth, and it seems to me that "anti-growth" people usually are the kind of people who can't tell the difference.

For starters one could have an interesting debate about what "good" and "bad" growth should look like.

While I can respect the various opinions most of the definitions are very arbitrary and chances are many people would disagree.

I swear most of you are NOT familiar with the metro landscape.

Originally Posted by i4isoar

I think "bad growth" means the uncontrolled sprawl of suburban areas, which has negative impacts like destroying the local environment (even seemingly empty grasslands can still be home to native fauna and flora), encouraging dependence on cars, increasing commute times...

Going back 40 years - and I'm especially familiar with development to the South and Southeast which was the primary driver of expansion at the time.

Thinking of Arapahoe Country and also Douglas County lots of natural habitat OPEN SPACE was included. Depending on topography much of this is used for flood control. Even many of the nicer Parks double as flood control.

It turns out that not everybody works in downtown Denver. In fact, 85% of employees work in the suburbs. Many work at the airport; many work in the various industrial parks along I-70; many work in the DTC/SE corridor. Consequently, commute times for much of this development may be quite convenient.

Originally Posted by i4isoar

The kind of "growth" that I support is densification within current urban boundaries, growing up rather than out. When I look at the map of how sprawling the Denver area is, I wonder if we could easily accommodate three or four times as many people here if every neighborhood, from Brighton to Highlands Ranch, were as densely-packed and built up as the area around Union Station.

Problem is that outside of the city of Denver people have very different opinions about density and crime and convenience and what is desirable for their families. Oftentimes many urbanites overlook just how much of a driver families are in forming opinions about various issues. Schools and school district are typically the number one reason along with where they work for where people choose to live.

[TakeFive]

Where will they all live?
It's a daunting challenge to consider.

Using Google's popup population numbers for 2021 per United States Census Bureau:

• Denver Country - 711,500
• Arapahoe County - 655,000
• Jefferson County - 578,500
• Adams County - 522,000
• Douglas County - 369,000
• Weld Country - 340,000
• Boulder County - 329,500

The greater metro area population is projected to grow by as much as 1.8 million (from 2020) by 2040. Where will they all live?

Just guessing that Denver County will add the most population while Adams County will grow at the fastest rate.

[mhays]

let me understand....sprawl is ok, the limit to developable infill land is apparently a small subset of what actually exists...

If you upzone, there can be a TON of land for infill, and a ton of capacity for units.

Dense housing can be affordable. For example:
--Upzone enough and land can be much cheaper per unit.
--Give the the people what want density more options and there will be less competition for houses.
--The typical urban equation is to use restaurants, hotels, and parks instead of having your own spaces for everything. Unless you have constant guests the cost won't be much.
--Woodframe is much cheaper than concrete. Make sure the rules allow six levels of woodframe up to 75' floors (around 85' ceilings).
--Today's new buildings tend to have high rents, but they'll move slowly downmarket over the decades, much like the 70s/80s buildings of today.
--Fix the condo liability thing so buyers can take advantage of all this (my city has the same issue).
--Get rid of parking requirements. Let developers gauge the market at their own risk.

PS, here's my primary thought about Phoenix: Don't screw up my draft picks!

[TakeFive]

True Story

I watched the 2nd half of the Broncos game and despite their lousy season the fans in the (always sold-out) stadium were rabidly into this game.

Needing three more 'trips' to get my weekend bonus I ventured over to my favorite shopping N entertainment district. For my 2nd trip I picked up a couple in front of Albertsons who were staying at the JW Marriott Desert Ridge Villas. Mike asked me where I was from and my standard line is "I spent most of my adult life in Denver" to which he mentions he's being transferred to Denver. He does data analytics related to manufacturing. I mentioned I spent a couple of years in St Louis where they're from and knew they have a lot of manufacturing related business there. He states how much they like St Louis and its great affordability and how expensive Denver has become. I told him that when I left Denver it was still a "nice down-home affordable place to to live."

I asked him if he knew yet where he would live; he says they'd probably look in east Aurora since it's one of the few affordable areas. Likely not a serious answer but he is familiar with Denver obviously.

I happened to mention our 'urban blog' and that a guy from Seattle was going to show me how make a place more affordable. And he said: "Tell the guy he's doing a lousy job because Seattle and San Francisco have to be two of the worst cities when it comes to affordability"

It's amazing what I can learn on a 5-minute trip.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

let me understand....sprawl is ok, the limit to developable infill land is apparently a small subset of what actually exists...

If you upzone, there can be a TON of land for infill, and a ton of capacity for units.

If you think about it, my posts are generally intended as observations of the real world as apposed to my opinion. Or if you prefer they're my opinion of reality.

Consider the concept of Efficiency

I can point to many, many neighborhoods built in the 1950's, the 1960's and 1970's which were the 'sprawl' at that time and were highly inefficient for land use. The 1970's were an especially 'sprawling' good time.

What I don't understand is why people hyper-ventilate over "new sprawl" that is highly efficient including mixed-use walkable, bikeable neighborhoods?

What's Missing

Ken who is fond of Denver Infill is also very fond of "missing middle" housing. We've had a number of 'discussions' around this and zoning. I, too, am fond of the missing middle. Back in the 1980's we didn't call it the missing middle but Arapahoe County (most notably) built a Schnit-ton of low and medium density attached housing especially townhomes. The advantage of working with a blank canvass ie raw land is that the goal IS EFFICIENCY. It's damn near impossible to retrofit 'efficiently' missing middle housing into previous sprawl with deep, narrow lots.

The biggest advantage of 'new sprawl' is that it efficiently creates mixed-use walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. It makes no sense that this would be a bad thing.

[twalm]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It's one thing to know "Urbanism" principles (which has its merits) but quite another to be familiar with the metro landscape.

Over the last 20 years most development has been on modest or even small lots and is much more efficient use of land than Denver's own suburbs built from the 1950's forward.

Additionally, these new developments come with lots of open space as this doubles as flood control and generally uses a natural habitat including coyotes running free looking for rabbits and small dogs.

If you're familiar with Lone Tree... this is an area of impressive urban-suburban density. Check out the east side master plan, which is just getting going, and most single family homes will be on small lots among mixed-use development so that residents can bike or walk to lots of places - or bike for miles and miles.


Actually, this is inaccurate.

Oh I love being told I am unfamiliar with the area WHERE I LIVE by someone who DOESN'T LIVE HERE.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes WHY suburbs are bad and how they are not sustainable. I literally grew up in the places you describe and I can tell you first hand that they are NOT the places that will be handling the growing population in the coming years. They are still single family homes with:
- giant green yards
- giant roads made for giant cars
- With No access to public transportation
- AND they are increasingly far from where people work


Sure green belts are good but how about just not building there in the first place.

Like others have already said a lot of this comes down to ZONING. And as I said before we have limitless land already, but are limited by ZONING. The last thing we need is more sprawl, and it is being caused by ZONING. Do you get it yet?

[twalm]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

What I don't understand is why people hyper-ventilate over "new sprawl" that is highly efficient including mixed-use walkable, bikeable neighborhoods?

Let me fill you in from someone who actually lives here: There is VERY LITTLE new sprawl that is mixed use. I drive by the new developments bulldozing land all the time and I can tell you it is rows and rows of single family housing.

Just go to satellite view in google maps and zoom in on the swaths of dirt on the outskirts of denver and tell me what you see when you zoom in.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by twalm

...In addition, sprawl usually is a lot of single family zoning that is MORE expensive to maintain for cities and counties and much worse for the environment because you need more cars, more heating, and more cooling.

That and I am sure that profit margins on dumb single family homes are thinner that moderately dense (not skyscrapers) mixed use development.

While what you are saying is absolutely true and much urban and financial research is available on the topic of municipal service cost by asset type, methinks you'd be shocked what most local zoning commission and city council members believe to be true. I won't group them all together, but most every voting member of the body politic believes apartments and trailer parks bankrupt their local coffers and single family homes, office buildings at the end of a bridge to nowhere, and strip center retail fills them up. They rely solely on police department metrics for service calls by address and associated cost allocations for that flawed metric. It's patently absurd and wholly disappointing.

Folks believe what they want to and big tech hasn't yet figured out how to scorn them for mis and dis information.

PS: most large homebuilders carry profit margins (during boom times) in the high teens or low 20 percent range. That's WAY higher than most typical large development opportunities. The very few who develop on the front side of an expansion blow these returns out of the water because they build low sell very high, but it's not typical or widespread. An office building or grocery anchored retail center or apartment building would be ecstatic with a 10-12% return. Hotels can do better, but that's really because of the business model, not the real estate so it's not really apples to apples.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...All current and ongoing new development is generally mixed-use with a high degree of land use efficiency including open space...

I don't wholly disagree with this, but I mainly do based solely upon #units produced in the mixed-use context and those outside of it. The VAST majority of suburban development in the last 20 years has not been mixed use and has far fewer housing options than the period before 2000. The 2010's were much worse than even the 2000's. Yes, planners have allocated a pitiful amount of strip center retail on hard corners here and there, but to call them mixed-use is a real stretch. Urban planning has so heavily regulated land use at this point that the large suburban homebuilders have become single product experts. They have 5-10 home plans they build by the tens of thousands each year.

The very visible areas like Central Park and Southlands have terrible faux town centers which are basically modern malls, but these areas severely lack the diversity housing options we saw through even the mid 2000's. Cottages, townhomes, small homes, large homes, town homes, apartments, senior living - ALL of these options are in nearly every large area neighborhood built up to the 1980's, most through the 1990's even, but I can only think of maybe two suburban spots where they captured all of this since the yeeeeeeeear 2000 - Central Park and Lone Tree.

The likes of Sterling Ranch, Rooney Valley, most of NoCo, E+SE Aurora, Thornton - the list goes on. This is where the serious sprawl is happening and housing diversity is absolutely not being produced in these areas, unfortunately.

Many existing suburban communities are doing a decent job of adding modest mixed use after the fact. Southglenn, Highlands Ranch, Englewood, Castle Rock, Broomfield, Westminster, Superior, Ft Collins, even Colorado Springs. Perhaps this is what you're referring to, but IMO the new suburban sprawl is worse than it was in the 1950's from a housing diversity standpoint.