DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Methinks you've been gone from Colorado too long. It's not the same place it used to be from a politics and business friendly standpoint.

We're barreling toward a tiny, less rich version of California.

Fourplex zoning could transform neighborhoods like Virginia Vale/Village in exciting ways.

Nobody could have predicted all the amazing change for Denver over the last 15 years.

2008 to 2013

The City Center awakens and attracts development. The three main catalysts (in order of occurrence) were 1) Coors Field 2) Doubling of the Convention Center (including conventions hotel) and 3) the passage of FasTracks which resulted in the redevelopment of Union Station and neighborhood.

The early years saw new development at Riverfront or Commons Park neighborhood. There was new development in LoDo, in Ballpark, and along Brighton Blvd birthed largely by Taxi. Then the buildout of DUS happened at a breakneck pace.

Most of this earlier development was in the 4- to 8-story range.

2013 to 2018

By 2012 many of the (apartment) experts were predicting Denver would soon be waaay overbuilt. But developers looking at population growth and the growing popularity of downtown forged ahead. Development densities continued to increase.

Prior to 2018 Denver was still plenty affordable and following the Great Recession nobody was panicked over housing costs or inventory. As each year went by construction costs increased as did rents. Urban construction is higher cost but the improving economy made continued construction attractive.

2018 to 2023

Denver becomes a Tech Town. Colorado/Denver always had a tech history but renewed enthusiasm of tech growth did a lot, both good and bad, to change Denver.

It's only been over the last five years that housing cots have gone through the roof. In Real Estate time that's a very short period to keep up with unpredictable demand.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Quite literally EVERY single suburb with beginnings before 1990 has a decent stock of duplexes, townhomes, cottages, and class C apartments. There are 0 exceptions. It's not like these places don't already have these land uses the State bill attempts to include by right and these places aren't exclusively SFH. The only thing that changed was zoning in the 90's began excluding literally everything except single family homes and big box retail...oh and giant plots of land for schools that will never get used, can't be rezoned (b/c...neighbors), and sit idle forevermore.

I think I failed to articulate my point correctly. I live in Olde Town Arvada (in a townhome), so I am definitely aware of the diverse housing options that exist in the older parts of most suburbs. But those same suburbs also have VAST swaths of single-family zoned neighborhoods, including many ranch home neighborhoods with zoning that dates all the way back to the 1950s. There is a deep fear in the suburbs that some of these neighborhoods (take, for example, this one) will loose their so-called "character" if this kind of legislation passes.

There is also a fear that the character of other neighborhoods (like this one) will also change. As Stonemans_rowJ correctly pointed out, many of these places have no alleys and possess other qualities that would make it essentially pointless to build duplexes there. I would guess that the majority of the fears of these far-flung neighborhoods "changing" are unfounded.

There is absolutely a lot of demand for townhomes, apartments, and all other kinds of housing in the suburbs today. But this is largely driven by the reality that developers are looking to put housing pretty much anywhere that cities will let them, because there are so few places they can build today. Oftentimes this means shoe-horning auto-oriented apartments and townhomes into locations that were slated for commercial (reducing the city’s projected tax base), or simply aren't very desirable places to live. I can't help but wonder if the demand for suburban-style townhomes in locations like this this might dry up if lots of new opportunities open up for townhomes in central locations where they would make more sense.

I have been using this as a thought experiment - If EVERY single-family neighborhood in the metro area started to see rapid redevelopment, it would require a population boom vastly larger than the one we are seeing. The reality is that the population of the metro area is not going to double overnight (where would all those jobs come from anyway?), so the vast majority of new construction would logically be targeted in the locations where it makes the most sense. There's no way this kind of rule change would result in wholesale change all across the metro area. In some places, the result may be a bit like a cork popping out of a bottle, and look like what we have seen in Sloan's Lake and Jefferson Park. In many other places (some of which are the most vocally opposed), I bet little to nothing would change at all.

If it would help alleviate some fears in the suburbs that would get some more senators on board with voting yes, then why not just acknowledge this reality and target the re-zoning in the places it would make the most sense (i.e. near transit corridors and places that already have most of the elements of a 15-minute neighborhood)? Or, what I was originally suggesting, would be to set different rules for suburbs as opposed to the primary economic centers - which this years draft did by creating a “tier 2.” I’m just saying maybe there should also be an intermediate tier - one that focuses middle-housing mostly near transit in the suburbs, but establishes it by-right everywhere in our true “tier 1” cities (easily definable as the cities that are the job centers).

[TakeFive]

"Where do we Go from Here?"

Forget the suburbs (for now) as most have already pivoted to offering a better mix of housing affordability in recent years.

The City of Denver needs to have a conversation about the advantages of fourplex zoning ("sell the benefits").

I have to believe that most residents, once they think about it, will find fourplex zoning to be Not Scary. Generally this more granular development would likely move at a snails pace anyway. An area between Dahlia Street (south of Leetsdale) and Colorado Blvd (for example) could potentially redevelop more quickly but that's likely an exception.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I’m just saying maybe there should also be an intermediate tier - one that focuses middle-housing mostly near transit in the suburbs, but establishes it by-right everywhere in our true “tier 1” cities (easily definable as the cities that are the job centers).

I am curious what makes you think that a duplex or a fourplex is any less appropriate for a neighborhood of ranch houses at Ralston & Wadsworth than it is at my house at 7th & Franklin. My neighborhood is single family. It is farther from transit. It certainly has more "character" to protect. And the lots are much smaller, making the impact of an ADU on the neighbors far more.

If anything, I would argue those ranch neighborhoods in Arvada are EXACTLY where we need to densify. Tier 1, Tier 2, or whatever. That is exactly who needs to have density crammed down their throats. I am perfectly happy to have seas of 10 story buildings built a few blocks down the street toward Broadway. I think the poor folks in Arvada can handle somebody living in their basement.

But I do not want it if it's targeting the areas that are already seeing density anyways. It's everybody, or it should be left to the whims of neighborhood by neighborhood decision-making, like it is now. A "state imposed" solution that isn't statewide - just no.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

"Where do we Go from Here?"

Forget the suburbs (for now) as most have already pivoted to offering a better mix of housing affordability in recent years.

The City of Denver needs to have a conversation about the advantages of fourplex zoning ("sell the benefits").

I have to believe that most residents, once they think about it, will find fourplex zoning to be Not Scary. Generally this more granular development would likely move at a snails pace anyway. An area between Dahlia Street (south of Leetsdale) and Colorado Blvd (for example) could potentially redevelop more quickly but that's likely an exception.

I think I disagree with every word of this post. Good job.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I can't help but wonder if the demand for suburban-style townhomes in locations like this this might dry up if lots of new opportunities open up for townhomes in central locations where they would make more sense.

Sorry to pick a nit but this example likely not a good one.

This is like flipping the script from granular development to the other end of the spectrum where developers could more efficiently and economically develop missing middle housing utilizing vacant land.

Don't forget, whether Broomfield or Boulder County, growth of Life Science jobs are projected to accelerate. Even though these cats may make good money, today's lifestyle means many would prefer a maintenance-free home.

----------------------------

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I think I disagree with every word of this post. Good job.

Well, it's not the first time and likely not the last time.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I am curious what makes you think that a duplex or a fourplex is any less appropriate for a neighborhood of ranch houses at Ralston & Wadsworth than it is at my house at 7th & Franklin. My neighborhood is single family. It is farther from transit. It certainly has more "character" to protect. And the lots are much smaller, making the impact of an ADU on the neighbors far more.

If anything, I would argue those ranch neighborhoods in Arvada are EXACTLY where we need to densify. Tier 1, Tier 2, or whatever. That is exactly who needs to have density crammed down their throats. I am perfectly happy to have seas of 10 story buildings built a few blocks down the street toward Broadway. I think the poor folks in Arvada can handle somebody living in their basement.

But I do not want it if it's targeting the areas that are already seeing density anyways. It's everybody, or it should be left to the whims of neighborhood by neighborhood decision-making, like it is now. A "state imposed" solution that isn't statewide - just no.

I don't think that was what I was trying to say at all. I was actually pointing out that the neighborhood of ranch houses at Ralston & Wadsworth is very close to the older, more diverse part of town, but that it is absolutely locked in with exclusive single-family zoning (zoning that dates to the 1950s - this zoning did not just begin in the 1990s as was earlier asserted). I agree - this is a location where it probably DOES make sense to add townhomes. But this is also the kind of location where the local city government will never even DISCUSS doing so - even raising the topic during a Comprehensive Plan update would be a political third rail. Local officials and planners will tell you "the community doesn't support density there," even though they've never honestly discussed that as an option.

I'm not speaking so much to the appropriateness of townhomes here vs. your neighborhood (I actually supported the bill as originally drafted), I'm speaking to the political expediency of asking Arvada's elected representative to vote for this. Recall that it was the State Senator who represents this very neighborhood who wrote this editorial, and then stripped the zoning elements out of the bill in her position on the Appropriations Committee.

In fact, if a plan did create a new "tier" for suburbs like Arvada, I would hope the final draft WOULD force that specific neighborhood to densify since it is so close to Olde Town and the G-line. It is a far more appropriate place to put density than that other location way out west on Indiana. I guess I'm just saying maybe there needs to be some kind of assurance for those folks way off Indiana (where it probably doesn't make sense to add density today).

But the fact remains that bedroom communities are just that - bedroom communities. They are not responsible for the majority of the job growth. I'm mostly suggesting that an approach focused on our core cities may get more buy-in from senators like the one from District 19.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mr1138

...I have been using this as a thought experiment - If EVERY single-family neighborhood in the metro area started to see rapid redevelopment, it would require a population boom vastly larger than the one we are seeing. The reality is that the population of the metro area is not going to double overnight (where would all those jobs come from anyway?), so the vast majority of new construction would logically be targeted in the locations where it makes the most sense. There's no way this kind of rule change would result in wholesale change all across the metro area. In some places, the result may be a bit like a cork popping out of a bottle, and look like what we have seen in Sloan's Lake and Jefferson Park. In many other places (some of which are the most vocally opposed), I bet little to nothing would change at all..

Who thinks it makes the most sense here or there? Are the suburbs the right spot with good schools or is the center city the right spot with coffee shops? How about an existing office park with ample open space or 2,641 feet from a transit stop? The only true answer to this question is that EVERY SINGLE PLACE makes sense for someone. Planners have been dictating (with their best foot forward in most cases) where growth goes and it doesn't work. The market is efficient, people doing studies and making plans are not efficient.

As to your thought experiment, it's an excellent one however I'd add to it that growth doesn't just GO EVERYWHERE. It feels like that now because it's concentrated in such few places due to dictation from City/County zoning plans. When that growth gets spread across the 85% of land in every jurisdiction that's zoned for single family homes, the growth will feel WAY LESS INTENSE than it does now. You, perhaps, are erroneously assuming investment decisions are made irrespective of population growth, which they very much are not. Nobody builds housing just for the fun of it if they don't think they'll get their money back and make a lil on the way. Oh...and when they think they can't get their money back, that throttle backs off incredibly quickly. Again, the market is incredibly efficient in this regard.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I don't think that was what I was trying to say at all. I was actually pointing out that the neighborhood of ranch houses at Ralston & Wadsworth is very close to the older, more diverse part of town, but that it is absolutely locked in with exclusive single-family zoning (zoning that dates to the 1950s - this zoning did not just begin in the 1990s as was earlier asserted).

Ralston/Wads has plenty of duplex, fourplex, class C apartments in the general area - in fact too many to count and interwoven with 1950's ranch homes everywhere. They've all since been zoned over with SFR but at one time (prior to 1990) the zoning allowed for those diverse uses there! It really did change in 1990, really moreso late 1980's but we'll round up. 1990 assertion holds!

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8028...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8052...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8071...7i16384!8i8192


https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8038...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8055...7i16384!8i8192

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mr1138

...There is absolutely a lot of demand for townhomes, apartments, and all other kinds of housing in the suburbs today. But this is largely driven by the reality that developers are looking to put housing pretty much anywhere that cities will let them, because there are so few places they can build today. Oftentimes this means shoe-horning auto-oriented apartments and townhomes into locations that were slated for commercial (reducing the city’s projected tax base), or simply aren't very desirable places to live...

I've heard this argument, mainly made by city/county officials in zoning hearings, more times I care to recite. It's fundamentally untrue and it's one of the AWFUL side effects of our Tabor/Gallagher extravaganza. They see the higher assessment rate and lower emergency response burden for commercial properties and assume that equates to higher sales tax base. It's one of the reasons retail is SPREAD SO THIN in our state. We have a self cannibalizing's retail market here. The new overtakes the old which becomes unusable and obsolete. Instead, if we had much higher residential densities, our retail would become much more valuable and sustainable and lead to much higher retail lease rates due to higher per square foot sales. Get more tax revenue out of the same retail infrastructure that's already in place. Think NYC with per square foot sales of $2,000-$3,000/sf vs Denver at maybe $600/sf.

[TakeFive]

https://milehighcre.com/national-coa...ng-tax-credit/

The Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition (AHTCC) is applauding the introduction of legislation in the U.S. House and Senate today that would expand and strengthen the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (Housing Credit) — the nation’s primary tool for financing the development and preservation of affordable rental housing — and finance nearly 2 million affordable rental homes in the next decade than otherwise possible.

The article reminds that the "Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act was first introduced in 2016."

“The housing credit is a proven tool that has leveraged public resources and private sector investment and oversight to finance nearly all new affordable housing produced and preserved in our country – over 3.7 million affordable homes since inception,”

This has helped with adaptive reuse projects as well as new contruction.

-----------------------------

The Wolcott - 1410 N Marion St. & 1321 E 14th Ave.


The Wolcott, courtesy of NorthPeak Commercial Advisors.

https://milehighcre.com/historic-40-...sells-for-10m/

The buyer, an unnamed investment group, consisting of a local investor and a Southern California investor, is planning extensive renovations for the 40 apartments within the turn-of-the-century former school buildings. Greg Johnson and Conner Piretti of NorthPeak Commercial Advisors represented the buyer and seller in this transaction.

“The seller had owned the property for over 40 years and was excited to find a new owner ready to care for this property that is a significant piece of the neighborhood’s colorful history,” stated Johnson.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

But the fact remains that bedroom communities are just that - bedroom communities. They are not responsible for the majority of the job growth. I'm mostly suggesting that an approach focused on our core cities may get more buy-in from senators like the one from District 19.

Aren't bedrooms where most white collar work occurs these days? Certainly not downtown or in any office district. Might be time we reconsider where our "economic growth" is generated.

Anyways, what I am saying is I do not want to buy the support of District 19 by focusing on core cities, excusing Arvada from responsibility. I would rather have no bill than the one you are advocating for.

Or perhaps more likely, start with a "every community must bear their fair share" bill - harder to oppose, if it still allows Arvada to stick it where Arvada thinks it makes sense. Rather than the very-Polis-esque I-know-best heavy-handed micromanagement.

[TakeFive]

Double your pleasure, double your fun

More Good News


Market Station exterior, courtesy of Continuum Partners

https://milehighcre.com/market-stati...retail-tenant/

Continuum Partners LLC, ... and Clarion Partners LLC ... announced today that Workplace Resource, Colorado’s leading innovator of creative interior solutions, will be joining Market Station as an office and retail tenant. Workplace Resource will lease approximately 15,741 square feet of office space on the second level, which they plan to use as a multi-purpose engagement space, and 2,918 square feet on the ground floor for a retail-level showroom.

Noteworthy

For over 30 years, Workplace Resource has worked with clients to create inspirational spaces specific to their company’s values and culture. ⁠The company was also honored as one of Denver’s 2023 Best Places to Work in the Large Companies category by the Denver Business Journal.

-----------------------------

I wouldn't disagree with this

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Aren't bedrooms where most white collar work occurs these days? Certainly not downtown or in any office district. Might be time we reconsider where our "economic growth" is generated.

Anyways, what I am saying is I do not want to buy the support of District 19 by focusing on core cities, excusing Arvada from responsibility. I would rather have no bill than the one you are advocating for.

Or perhaps more likely, start with a "every community must bear their fair share" bill - harder to oppose, if it still allows Arvada to stick it where Arvada thinks it makes sense. Rather than the very-Polis-esque I-know-best heavy-handed micromanagement.

[TakeFive]

Affordable Housing - Frisco Style

Granite Park - 619 Granite Street


Courtesy CDOT

Frisco and CDOT to break ground on affordable housing complex for employees, residents
May 15, 2023 By Kirin Pandit 9News

"It's really critical for us to find affordable housing units that folks can actually stay in," CDOT spokesperson Stacia Sellers said. "The cost of living is quite high within mountain communities, and it can make it difficult for families to stay within areas and communities that they love."

The project, called Granite Park.... It will have 22 units. Half will be for CDOT employees and the other half will be for qualified Frisco residents.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I do not want to buy the support of District 19 by focusing on core cities, excusing Arvada from responsibility. I would rather have no bill than the one you are advocating for.

Or perhaps more likely, start with a "every community must bear their fair share" bill - harder to oppose

"Fair share" housing targets are a set-up for constant litigation, as every community does its best to get around the rules every year, as we see in California. It's a step above nothing, but I'm skeptical of it as a true solution. OTOH, aren't you a lawyer?

How about a transect-based rule that defines a dozen or so levels of density, and requires the next higher one to be legal by right on all properties statewide, at all times?

[TakeFive]

It may not be the density you were hoping for...
But that's Okay; we start here and we go from there.

The Bird Lot - 2532 Larimer St


Credit: EDENS

https://milehighcre.com/edens-opens-...32-larimer-st/

EDENS, a leading national retail real estate owner, operator and developer, recently launched The Bird Lot, a temporary activation at 2532 Larimer St. featuring clothing boutiques, artisanal food trucks and other pop-up retailers, adding another vibrant shopping and dining destination to Denver’s RiNo Art District. The Bird Lot will host a series of events and programs throughout the summer, including live music, art installations, and workshops.

----------------------------

Originally Posted by Cirrus

"Fair share" housing targets are a set-up for constant litigation, as every community does its best to get around the rules every year, as we see in California. It's a step above nothing, but I'm skeptical of it as a true solution. OTOH, aren't you a lawyer?

How about a transect-based rule that defines a dozen or so levels of density, and requires the next higher one to be legal by right on all properties statewide, at all times?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

"Fair share" housing targets are a set-up for constant litigation, as every community does its best to get around the rules every year, as we see in California. It's a step above nothing, but I'm skeptical of it as a true solution. OTOH, aren't you a lawyer?

How about a transect-based rule that defines a dozen or so levels of density, and requires the next higher one to be legal by right on all properties statewide, at all times?

I could definitely write an ordinance to downzone entire cities by one transect the day after that law passes.

[TakeFive]

Before you build, you first have to buy the site

Greystar purchases Golden Triangle property for Parq II apartments
May 17, 2023 By Kate Tracy – Reporter , Denver Business Journal

Greystar appears to be getting close to breaking ground on its next project in the Golden Triangle.

Property records show that an LLC affiliated with Greystar purchased the addresses of 973 and 956 N. Bannock St., 970 N. Cherokee St. and 224 W. 10th Ave. for $500,000 on May 15. They were previously owned by the Sarkisian family, fifth-generation family operators of Sarkisian’s Rugs & Fine Art at 693 E. Speer Blvd.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

"Fair share" housing targets are a set-up for constant litigation, as every community does its best to get around the rules every year, as we see in California. It's a step above nothing, but I'm skeptical of it as a true solution. OTOH, aren't you a lawyer?

How about a transect-based rule that defines a dozen or so levels of density, and requires the next higher one to be legal by right on all properties statewide, at all times?

It works pretty well in Washington state. The state sets population targets every five years for all the urban counties. Cities above a certain size are required to take their share, and zone for it. Most do it by upzoning commercial areas to protect SFRs (before we liberalized those). Every significant municipality has urban infill at least in certain nodes.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Ralston/Wads has plenty of duplex, fourplex, class C apartments in the general area - in fact too many to count and interwoven with 1950's ranch homes everywhere. They've all since been zoned over with SFR but at one time (prior to 1990) the zoning allowed for those diverse uses there! It really did change in 1990, really moreso late 1980's but we'll round up. 1990 assertion holds!

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8028...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8052...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8071...7i16384!8i8192


https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8038...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8055...7i16384!8i8192

I sort of see what you're saying, but I guess I just wouldn't consider any of these examples to be "interwoven" with the ranch homes in any way. If you look at these properties on a zoning map, you can clearly see that the properties you cited are clustered around the edges of the ranch home neighborhoods, or along collector streets like Pierce or Olde Wadsworth.

I'd also point out that the structures shown in the links you provided are generally from the 1970s or earlier, and are in locations that were earlier country roads that already had a mix of uses. I think I'm starting to see what you're saying about 90s era rezonings that essentially spot-zoned individual parcels to lock in the use that was already happening there (an inappropriate use of zoning if you ask me). But these areas have pre-war land use patterns that are different from the acres and acres of tract homes that started going up in the 1950s. For the record, Denver zones this way too, most recently in the 2010 form-based update that carved out lot-specific MS or MX zones for existing commercial structures in residential neighborhoods - essentially locking in a 1930s land use pattern without acknowledging the flexibility in zoning (i.e. no zoning at all) that allowed these patterns to emerge in the first place.

When I mentioned 1950s ranch homes, I was talking about streets like this one, which were platted and zoned exclusively for single family homes ever since the subdivision was originally approved (in the 1950s). In my mind, streets and neighborhoods where higher-density structures are truly "interwoven" in with single-family homes are more like this one.

Originally Posted by laniroj

I've heard this argument, mainly made by city/county officials in zoning hearings, more times I care to recite. It's fundamentally untrue and it's one of the AWFUL side effects of our Tabor/Gallagher extravaganza. They see the higher assessment rate and lower emergency response burden for commercial properties and assume that equates to higher sales tax base. It's one of the reasons retail is SPREAD SO THIN in our state. We have a self cannibalizing's retail market here. The new overtakes the old which becomes unusable and obsolete. Instead, if we had much higher residential densities, our retail would become much more valuable and sustainable and lead to much higher retail lease rates due to higher per square foot sales. Get more tax revenue out of the same retail infrastructure that's already in place. Think NYC with per square foot sales of $2,000-$3,000/sf vs Denver at maybe $600/sf.

You are definitely correct this is a side effect of Tabor/Gallagher, and it is extremely unfortunate. It leads to suburbs thinking that they need to discourage population growth unless they get new retail (which you correctly observe they will never get without higher population densities). As unfortunate as it is, economic development departments convey this message to potential developers all the time to discourage applications for rezoning.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Anyways, what I am saying is I do not want to buy the support of District 19 by focusing on core cities, excusing Arvada from responsibility. I would rather have no bill than the one you are advocating for.

I think "advocating for" might be a bit of a strong statement. I was posing the question for discussion. The bill that was actually on the table already carved up Colorado into 4 different categories (Tier 1, Tier 2, Resort Community, and everywhere else) with different rules for different contexts. I'm just not sure that they categorized everyone correctly.

I'm also not completely convinced that outer-ring suburbs need this upzoning right now as much as neighborhoods that are closer-in to transit or already have good walkability do. So maybe the last version of the house bill was essentially correct - just base it on proximity to transit and don't try to pick winners and losers at all. Those who live far away from transit would have nothing to fear - and mandating middle-housing near transit would upzone pretty much all of a community like Boulder.

But I'm all for a solution that applies equally to everyone.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

How about a transect-based rule that defines a dozen or so levels of density, and requires the next higher one to be legal by right on all properties statewide, at all times?

Now this is something I could definitely get on board with. The more time passes, the more that I think zoning should always allow for this "next level" of density so we don't constantly have to fight this battle. Zoning should protect health and safety, not prevent cities from growing incrementally the way they always have grown. Nobody's health or safety is legitimately threatened by a duplex going up next door.