DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

I'm declaring 1995 the year Denver became legitimate

To understand a place is to know it's history; that's its DNA.

BTW, the 1st iteration of single-family neighborhoods were simply the new and improved version of Pop-up shanties I read about in Strong Towns.

Of course the automobile changed the world we live in

whether you love or hate it really doesn't matter.

For the longest time Denver was in flyover country. It was a 'cow town' and I say that with great affection.

Economically, Denver benefited from being the center of the West. Thanks partly to Boulder/CU and politicos, many national labs were located in the area. It fostered the very important Aerospace industry as well as other good stuff.

With lots of cheap land the suburbs flourished

Originally Posted by mr1138

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).

The Axiom has always been that "retail follows rooftops."

Moving into the 1970's the 'shopping center' became the retail downtown for the suburbs. Neighborhood centers were popular as that's where we bought our groceries. Strip centers had there place (and still do). All this was before Mr. Big Box came along and the Big Box crowd was before Amazon came along.

The outsized impact of Oil & Gas

Always a boom and bust business it left lots of footprints in Denver. No question that 'roughnecks' were a rough and tumble crowd. But Ohh they loved the city. Downtown Denver really came alive when the business boomed.

I never payed any attention to zoning although I did become aware of PUD zoning. That allowed for 'efficient' density. It sure helped to create tons of 'missing middle' housing in the suburbs.

[TakeFive]

What was special about 1995?

Toy Store was the most popular film and Forrest Gump won an Oscar for Best Picture. ER, Seinfeld, and Friends were the most popular TV shows.

April 26, 1995 changed Denver

Coors Field - 2001 Blake St


Credit Creator: MARK REIS

If you were there... If you're aware of the record breaking attendance at Mile High Stadium and then at Coors Field then you can appreciate why this was such a catalyst. Blake Street became famous for its Blake Street Bombers.

When MLB decided Denver deserved to be a major league city it helped immensely with Denver's stature in various ways. And the timing couldn't have been better. After flirting with the suburbs MLB went Retro and city-centered.

Makes sense to me

Originally Posted by mr1138

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...

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mr1138

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.

My favorite approach would be statewide spot incremental zoning. It goes like this:

1. Any adjacent parcel to any particular land use would be available for the next dense use/height allowed - for example a single family block with two story homes would allow for a side by side or tonwhome/duplex/row home or over/under duplex.

2. Once 25% of a block transitions to the denser use, the next level of density and height are allowed...and so on.

3. On top of site specific incremental zoning, broad zoning overlays (not parcel by parcel but say 200 feet on either side of a road) would allow for much denser structures with much taller height on arterial roads and at transit stations and obviously in downtown or commercial center areas.

4. State would pass a statute allowing residential in all zone districts except for the industrial A category (heavy industrial). Why we separate retail from office from heavy industrial from flex is beyond me. I rather like seeing the old company homes mixed amongst the warehouses...

^State law would mandate not lot line setbacks, build to requirements, second+ story setbacks, etc....total flexibility. There would be a 15 year sunset on the initial law to give it time to work. If a cycle is generally 7 years, that gives the market one cycle to learn an another to really produce.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by laniroj

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.

Personally, I would like to see planning departments spend a whole lot less time worrying about where growth goes, and a whole lot more time worrying about how it gets built.

Rather than endlessly worrying about things like density, parking, or trying to decide if sidewalks should count toward or against minimum open area requirements (yes, this is a real discussion) - sometimes I wish planning would spend a whole lot more time scrutinizing the urban design fundamentals of minor subdivision plats. It may sound boring but it is extremely important and is an area where I feel like modern urban planning is being entirely neglectful.

I have to give credit where credit is due - about 15 years ago, Boulder approved the Transit Village Subarea Plan (TVAP - kind of ironic since the transit is still decades off). This plan included one of the only legally enforceable "connections plans" that I am aware of in Colorado. It basically gave the plan reviewers the legal backing to request public ROW in specific locations. After almost 2 decades in effect, the city has now exacted about 75% of the planned connections and the neighborhood is looking fantastic. I'd provide streetview examples, but it is mostly all too new and the best parts of it still haven't been photographed - I'd encourage anyone in the area to go check it out. My favorite example is this alley, where the city exacted ROW from two different landowners almost a decade apart. The Google streetview image is actually outdated and only shows half of the current alley - check out the aerial view for the current state of things. This kind of effort takes some serious long-term follow through, but this is the kind of subdivision approach (each half of the street comes from a different original landowner) that used to be common and gave us neighborhoods like the Highlands over 100 years ago. There is nothing wrong with a half-completed street or alley. But instead we end up with crap like this (honestly - why did we need two over-wide private alleys separated by a fence?).

I reached out to a planner in Arvada once to ask why we couldn't plan for new connections east-west between Balsam and Allison. I received a response that "unfortunately, current and future land use patterns do not allow for new connections" (I'm paraphrasing a bit). And let that second part sink in for a second - we can't plan for "future land use patterns" - really? They would prefer a "developer driven approach" that "encourages" new connections rather than mandating where they go. As if urban design outcomes like this one are desirable.

These poor urban design outcomes are a part of why we have things like "DenverFugly" - it's not just the cheap stucco. What are planners actually "planning" if all they are doing is reviewing applications in a piecemeal fashion as they come in, wasting staff time on things that may not actually matter? Why not actually come up with a real plan for how we are subdividing our land as we get denser? With a little advice from the real estate development community, we could probably easily determine which neighborhoods are about to "pop" and come up with a community-supported plan. If a neighborhood like Sloan's Lake had adopted a "connections plan" 15 years ago, the outcome today would be very different.

[rds70]

A little development news:

3300 Blake - a 7 and 12 story project with 484 units and 6,000 square feet of retail. 140 feet in height. The developer is Carmel Partners and the architect is the Davis Partnership. Construction should begin in late summer.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I reached out to a planner in Arvada once to ask why we couldn't plan for new connections east-west between Balsam and Allison. I received a response that "unfortunately, current and future land use patterns do not allow for new connections" (I'm paraphrasing a bit). And let that second part sink in for a second - we can't plan for "future land use patterns" - really? They would prefer a "developer driven approach" that "encourages" new connections rather than mandating where they go.

Like this? - https://arvadapermits.org/eTRAKiT3/v...a2303090458342

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Personally, I would like to see planning departments spend a whole lot less time worrying about where growth goes, and a whole lot more time worrying about how it gets built.

Rather than endlessly worrying about things like density, parking, or trying to decide if sidewalks should count toward or against minimum open area requirements (yes, this is a real discussion) - sometimes I wish planning would spend a whole lot more time scrutinizing the urban design fundamentals of minor subdivision plats. It may sound boring but it is extremely important and is an area where I feel like modern urban planning is being entirely neglectful.

^Part 1 above is insanely terrifying to me. A dozen planners behind closed doors will never be as creative or market serving as hundreds or thousands of professional and would be developers.

Part 2 - The City of Denver is proactively engaged in right of way discussions (I call them takings) on just about every single developed parcel in the spirit of planning for future development patterns. Most municipalities are. To what extent varies but the double alley example you provided is generally not how things play out and what I'd consider an exception to the rule. The ENORMOUS issue is that the planners get the right of way and then it's up to DOTI (Department of Transportation & Infrastructure for those not familiar) to program that space. What does DOTI do....they plan out 11-12' travel lanes with center, left, and right turn lanes for residential streets based on 1960's highway road standards. They rely on 'standards' vs just getting something that is good, this is the crux of it all. We want perfection and it ends up pushing out everything that isn't a car or 18-wheeler. I wish I could convey in adequate terms how un-creative the development process is allowed to be due to regulations - which you seem to be wanting more of. The 15-minute village concept is one the market WILL deliver because it's economics are sound. Planners and engineers should stop trying to dictate what that looks like.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by rds70

Like this? - https://arvadapermits.org/eTRAKiT3/v...a2303090458342

Interesting - thanks for sharing this. I usually use this webmap to find out what is going on in Arvada, so it is interesting that this project doesn't appear here. I won't go into a full critique of that site plan here, but I still think this leaves something to be desired (especially that stub-end alley that doesn't connect through to Balsam).

I'm happy to see that a new connection may finally be formed, though this doesn't exactly speak to my point because this appears to be an assembly of land by a single developer that would allow for such a connection to be made. What I am suggesting is that connections be exacted in partial stages, like what Boulder did. They could be so much more creative with that site plan if they integrated the plan with the future of the neighboring properties, rather than simply ignoring them and walling off the community with a privacy fence.

Originally Posted by laniroj

^Part 1 above is insanely terrifying to me. A dozen planners behind closed doors will never be as creative or market serving as hundreds or thousands of professional and would be developers.

Part 2 - The City of Denver is proactively engaged in right of way discussions (I call them takings) on just about every single developed parcel in the spirit of planning for future development patterns. Most municipalities are. To what extent varies but the double alley example you provided is generally not how things play out and what I'd consider an exception to the rule. The ENORMOUS issue is that the planners get the right of way and then it's up to DOTI (Department of Transportation & Infrastructure for those not familiar) to program that space. What does DOTI do....they plan out 11-12' travel lanes with center, left, and right turn lanes for residential streets based on 1960's highway road standards. They rely on 'standards' vs just getting something that is good, this is the crux of it all. We want perfection and it ends up pushing out everything that isn't a car or 18-wheeler. I wish I could convey in adequate terms how un-creative the development process is allowed to be due to regulations - which you seem to be wanting more of. The 15-minute village concept is one the market WILL deliver because it's economics are sound. Planners and engineers should stop trying to dictate what that looks like.

I guess I don't see what is so terrifying. I never said anything about this being done behind closed doors - a connections plan can be an open process that involves the community. By looking at an entire neighborhood as a single composition, it should be possible to come up with a design that is more efficient, wastes less space, and is more aesthetically attractive. Based on what I have seen, the double-alley example IS the norm and most cities' current approach tends to continue giving crappy results like this block near Sloan's Lake. There is nothing creative or desirable about this outcome - just look at all those stub-end alleys that don't connect to each other. There is no way anybody can convince me this is the most efficient layout of this block. I am certain they could have gotten more units in, hidden the alleys in back, and created more attractive street frontages with a coordinated plan. I have yet to see a single example of a block coming together in a coherent kind of way with a piecemeal approach.

I'm also not sure why new connections necessarily need to be streets designed to 1960s standards. The city is more than capable of creating pedestrian "paseos" and alleyways designed to modern standards if that is more appropriate. I would take this kind of outcome any day over what I see happening in Denver.

[TakeFive]

Side Pocket - Transit Topic

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?

Just read a piece by Eric Levitz in the "Intelligencer" section of the New York Mag. It's a bit of a copycat piece of David Zipper at VOX in March. Fortunately it's abbreviated from that long-winded piece.

In any case he states:

WMATA rail ridership is currently stuck at 50 percent of pre-pandemic levels...

To this point, COVID-era federal funds have masked the financial implications of collapsing ridership. ... But now that money is running out. In 2024, D.C.’s WMATA is staring down a $738 million shortfall.

The proposed answer for these problems is always to find more money from taxpayers, from the state and/or Federal governments.

Any insights from a NoVA perspective?

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mr1138

... I guess I don't see what is so terrifying. I never said anything about this being done behind closed doors - a connections plan can be an open process that involves the community. By looking at an entire neighborhood as a single composition, it should be possible to come up with a design that is more efficient, wastes less space, and is more aesthetically attractive. Based on what I have seen, the double-alley example IS the norm and most cities' current approach tends to continue giving crappy results like this block near Sloan's Lake...

The issue is property rights. To be able to do what you want, Cities would need to use eminent domain in complete excess. That's not ever going to happen in this country. I am terrified at the prospect of government bureaucrats deciding how best to use my private property (or my neighbor's). It's bad enough how they determine land use currently. Also - you see all those darn roads because of 1) parking requirements and 2) fire department requirements.

My guess is MANY would-be and small scale developers would build quite a bit of product if given the opportunity to do so. It's also apples and moon dust you're comparing. That area of Boulder is some of the nicest development in Colorado and is incredibly expensive.

[TakeFive]

Your new apartment is ready, now

NOVEL RiNo by Crescent Communities - 1350 40th St






Images courtesy NOVEL RiNO by Crescent Communities

ON THE EDGE OF UNEXPECTED

With joyous abandon of labels and a gut for all things original, we are NOVEL RiNo. We are redefining apartment living on the north end of the eclectic RiNo neighborhood with studio, one- and two-bedroom apartment homes with unique finishes and features.

We are an uncategorized soundtrack, an indispensable style and a mark that can’t be removed. We are around the corner, just down the street and a little bit thataways. We are coloring outside the lines and flourishing on the fringes with an open welcome mat.

The project includes 483 apartment units.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by rds70

A little development news:

3300 Blake - a 7 and 12 story project with 484 units and 6,000 square feet of retail. 140 feet in height. The developer is Carmel Partners and the architect is the Davis Partnership. Construction should begin in late summer.

I wonder if Carmel Partners might move this project ahead of their site on Brighton Blvd in priority?

Side Topic

PODCAST: Carmel Partners CEO Ron Zeff ... Talk First Republic Fallout
May 7, 2023 Miriam Hall, New York City

“There's just a lot of uncertainty out there, and this doesn't help at all,” Ron Zeff, the CEO of Carmel Partners, said on the show.

Zeff said while Carmel didn't have any loans with First Republic Bank, he did have personal deposits at the institution, which he reduced before its failure to below $250K.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Gents-

The ADU topic I have strong feelings on since I think it's a non-starter unless you have FU money, a MIL in the basement etc.

Major fail on Denver by not upzoning under the last try. Does Ken still post on here? Glad to see bunt still here. And TakeFive. Like your takes no matter how much I disagree, or they aren't current. A forum is for dialogue.

Laniroj. I would love to meet up. I have a lot and several more "available."

When's the next meetup?

[TakeFive]

Why Jared Polis’ land-use bill imploded on the final day of Colorado’s legislative session
May 24, 2023 By Andrew Kenney - CPR

Note: Andrew Kenney continues to be my favorite Denver writer. He embodies the concept of "professional Journalist," something that is hard to find these days. This piece is also quite interesting.

It all came down to growing opposition (even among Dems) to State "preemption" of local control. There didn't seem to be any opposition to the value of adding more affordable housing; the issues were 'what to do' and 'how to do it.'

Kevin Bommer, the executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, said he was open to a “collaborative discussion,” especially about affordable housing — but warned that including preemption among the proposals would start the war all over again.

“What I saw this session was the most significant grassroots municipal and county response to any legislation in my nearly 24 years of working at the Colorado Municipal League,” he said. Any assumption that there would be less resistance to local preemption next year would be “unfortunate,” he added.

[TakeFive]

Alliance Construction Solutions Completes Construction of Stanley House Apartments
May 25, 2023 - CRE






Images courtesy of Alliance Construction Solutions

Stanley Housing Apartments, located at 9501 E 23rd Ave in Aurora, is a collaboration between Westfield Company, Shears Adkins Rockmore, and Alliance Construction Solutions. This 5-story, 168-unit, 148,000-square-foot, podium plus amenity space, is adjacent to Stanley Marketplace and is a great addition to the community of Aurora.

This property offers studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments.

If you're into walking this should be a great place to live -- unless you already live in the area, then you know how walkable it is.

[mhays]

What's a "studio bedroom apartment"?

So many English majors out there, unused.

[TakeFive]

Best of Luck You Guys

I've waited over four decades for the Nuggets to get their shot at the Larry O'Brien NBA Championship Trophy.

Nikola Jokić and Jamal Murray


A spray-painted mural of the Denver Nuggets' Nikola Jokić and Jamal Murray by artist Thomas "Detour"
Evans, located near Colfax Avenue and Race Street. Photo: Alayna Alvarez/Axios

[RyanD]

New glass on 1900 Lawrence:

https://denverinfill.com/2023/05/new...-lawrence.html

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

WMATA rail ridership is currently stuck at 50 percent of pre-pandemic levels...

To this point, COVID-era federal funds have masked the financial implications of collapsing ridership. ... But now that money is running out. In 2024, D.C.’s WMATA is staring down a $738 million shortfall.

The proposed answer for these problems is always to find more money from taxpayers, from the state and/or Federal governments.

Any insights from a NoVA perspective?

This is an unusual problem because the cities it's most affecting are the ones that pre-covid had the most successful fare recovery. Basically, financially speaking, it doesn't matter how many people ride (say) Colorado Springs buses, because there are so few buses and a high percentage of their operations are subsidized anyway.

But DC, SF, NY... these cities had great fare recovery pre-covid. Tons of service, with much more of it paid by fares than typical US cities. Exactly what you'd call "successful" if you wanted maximum efficiency for minimum subsidy.

But then covid teleworking cratered the downtown transit commute. It's recovering ("stuck" is not really an accurate way to describe it), but at a pace that's slower than the rest of the economy.

So are we really going to punish the cities that had been doing it right by relying on fares, by permanently wiping out their infrastructure, for what is in all likelihood a temporary problem? That would be extremely stupid. Even if you don't care about transit (which would also be stupid, but I digress), the costs of replacing these transit systems with new infrastructure to serve these cities would be astronomically higher than the cost of bailing them out for a couple more years.

And yes, that's how it would work. It's not a matter of "well fewer people are riding today, and we don't need replacement infrastructure, so why not just provide less service and lock in today's status quo?" That doesn't work, because if you provide less service, the people who are still riding will stop. And there's still a hundred thousand commuters per day coming into downtown on the Metro, even with this lower ridership. That's people, not trips. If we make the Metro unusable, they're either not coming anymore, or we're going to have to bulldoze a lot of buildings and replace them with parking lots.

A lot of buildings. Like 100 square blocks worth.

Oh you were hoping for an economic recovery? Sorry about that. Going to bulldoze literally half of downtown instead, for the parking that's now required because we didn't want to bail out the Metro.

So that's where we are. And San Francisco, and a few other cities. The bailout is the cheapest option, actually.

PS: None of this is to say transit doesn't need to adjust. Off-peak is still doing better than peak, and probably will for a long time. Downtown is going to evolve to be more residential. Last mile trips are still falling off the bus and being replaced by other modes. A lot of evolution is happening and accelerating. But the question of "should we bailout transit operations in the big cities later this year?" is actually pretty straightforward.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So are we really going to punish the cities that had been doing it right by relying on fares, by permanently wiping out their infrastructure, for what is in all likelihood a temporary problem? That would be extremely stupid. Even if you don't care about transit (which would also be stupid, but I digress), the costs of replacing these transit systems with new infrastructure to serve these cities would be astronomically higher than the cost of bailing them out for a couple more years.

The Good News is that Biden protected the already committed but unspent transit funding from the COVID Stimulus money in the 'debt' Bill.

Today's Infrastructure Costs

In 2020 Austin voters approved $7.1 billion for a visionary transit and light rail plan. I knew it was pie-in-the-sky. Fast forward past COVID inflation and over a year ago they went back to the drawing board. They came up with 5 potential routes which were whittled down to two and they just chose one of the two to move forward on. It's entirely on-street, 9.8 miles (15 stations) and will cost just under $5 billion. That's an eye-popping (close to) $500 million per mile. For comparison RTD's FasTracks cost $70 million per mile and IIRC WMATA spent roughly $300 million per mile on the Silver Line.

I also read that the 3 transit agencies that serve Chicagoland formed a commission to reimagine transit and come up with a funding recommendation that can be voted on next year. They didn't leave themselves much time but Chicago voters seem to accept ever higher taxes.

D.C. is likely to get some preferential treatment but after next year's election I would anticipate transit funding going back to the traditional allocations.

Agencies may just have to adjust service levels in the short term depending on their budgets. Fortunately for RTD they never received much over 20% fare recapture rate and although it's even less now they moved quickly to create efficiencies and still offer credible transit service.