DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[BG918]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Slim and none. If the Dikeous ever build anything, that will be cold day in hell.

Same chances the Tabor 2 tower gets built and/or the Rockies win the World Series.

[rds70]

Latest version of X Denver 3 or 4 (but who's counting):

23 stories, 261.5 feet, 397 units

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by rds70

Latest version of X Denver 3 or 4 (but who's counting):

23 stories, 261.5 feet, 397 units

This feels like a solid add to the area. I do wish that the parking podium was completely wrapped instead of having that one portion exposed.


Does also seem like it's a better landscaping treatment to buffer the L Line versus what is done, i.e. nothing, further down Welton.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I get the disenchantment with bulldurhamer's bombastic rhetoric.

But nobody has addressed the substance of what he is saying. His primary issue is with the gun violence.

If you want to sit down and calmly discuss concerns over tea with Denethor as he screams slobbering from the tops of the walls for everyone to flee, fine, good luck to you.

Unless Denver somehow magically leaves the US gun violence is a choice that, like it or not, every single US citizen is choosing to deal with right now by not leaving the country. The solution to gun violence is a national voting issue that is way too complicated to get into on this forum (as complicated as, you know, don't vote for people who basically want us all to be issued handguns at birth- apparently this IS sufficiently difficult to enough American voters that this is where we are though). Can you do things to reduce it locally.. sure, maybe for a couple years until whatever you do reaches the SCOTUS.

Other than that it can be calmly and rationally (joking obviously) debated and discussed in other forums. Calling out any one US city for gun violence is a complete waste of time here. It's like complaining that there's too much oxygen in the air in one specific city.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

If you want to sit down and calmly discuss concerns over tea with Denethor as he screams slobbering from the tops of the walls for everyone to flee, fine, good luck to you.

Unless Denver somehow magically leaves the US gun violence is a choice that, like it or not, every single US citizen is choosing to deal with right now by not leaving the country. The solution to gun violence is a national voting issue that is way too complicated to get into on this forum (as complicated as, you know, don't vote for people who basically want us all to be issued handguns at birth- apparently this IS sufficiently difficult to enough American voters that this is where we are though). Can you do things to reduce it locally.. sure, maybe for a couple years until whatever you do reaches the SCOTUS.

Other than that it can be calmly and rationally (joking obviously) debated and discussed in other forums. Calling out any one US city for gun violence is a complete waste of time here. It's like complaining that there's too much oxygen in the air in one specific city.

You remember 10 years ago when Cirrus and other forward-thinking progressives on this forum would say things like "there's no war on cars - that's a red herring - what we really want is equal treatment for other modes." Yeah, nobody says that anymore. Urbanists have come clean. There is a war on cars. Only by actively reducing cars can we make the other modes work.

I would argue the same has happened with guns. 10 years ago, forward-thinking progressives said things like "of course we are not coming for your guns (read: hunting rifles, shotguns, even handguns), we just want reasonable restrictions on guns that regular people never had a need for in the first place (read: assault rifles)." I am not sure that is true anymore. As the Democratic Party has moved left, I am not sure that the (used-to-be-crazy) NRA fears are so unfounded anymore; I think "take the guns" is exactly the position of many progressives.

I do not believe there is an opportunity for moderate discourse on that issue, or many other issues, now that the Democratic Party has followed what the Republican Party did two decades earlier. I just don't bother with discourse anymore. And I quietly hope that sitting in the middle, hiding, eventually results in each extreme eviscerating the other, before I am eviscerated in the crossfire. (Whether that is political evisceration, or eventually real-world evisceration, I will leave to science fiction.)

Really interesting article on that phenomenon today, actually. (Not citing those two issues specifically, but arguably it's the same idea.) -> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/opinion/polarization-nationalism-patriotism-history.html

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You remember 10 years ago when Cirrus and other forward-thinking progressives on this forum would say things like "there's no war on cars - that's a red herring - what we really want is equal treatment for other modes." Yeah, nobody says that anymore. Urbanists have come clean. There is a war on cars. Only by actively reducing cars can we make the other modes work.

I would argue the same has happened with guns. 10 years ago, forward-thinking progressives said things like "of course we are not coming for your guns (read: hunting rifles, shotguns, even handguns), we just want reasonable restrictions on guns that regular people never had a need for in the first place (read: assault rifles)." I am not sure that is true anymore. As the Democratic Party has moved left, I am not sure that the (used-to-be-crazy) NRA fears are so unfounded anymore; I think "take the guns" is exactly the position of many progressives.

I do not believe there is an opportunity for moderate discourse on that issue, or many other issues, now that the Democratic Party has followed what the Republican Party did two decades earlier. I just don't bother with discourse anymore. And I quietly hope that sitting in the middle, hiding, eventually results in each extreme eviscerating the other, before I am eviscerated in the crossfire. (Whether that is political evisceration, or eventually real-world evisceration, I will leave to science fiction.)

Really interesting article on that phenomenon today, actually. (Not citing those two issues specifically, but arguably it's the same idea.) -> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/opinion/polarization-nationalism-patriotism-history.html

I dunno.. you and I are I suspect not on the same side of the center line but I've always found talking to you easy and reasonable. I wouldn't hide the fact that I WANT fewer cars and I WANT to take most guns away (hunting rifles etc as you said excepted). But I also don't expect anything I want to happen by fiat.

Just reading that article... I think "gut level hatred" is what is turning so many off to this forum too. (if you grant that anyone who doesn't think exactly like me has any guts :-P )

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I do not believe there is an opportunity for moderate discourse on that issue, or many other issues, now that the Democratic Party has followed what the Republican Party did two decades earlier. I just don't bother with discourse anymore. And I quietly hope that sitting in the middle, hiding, eventually results in each extreme eviscerating the other, before I am eviscerated in the crossfire. (Whether that is political evisceration, or eventually real-world evisceration, I will leave to science fiction.)

Probably won't happen because each of the extremes are the loudest, most obnoxious, and passionate individuals who are the one's that show up to caucuses and primaries. They are the gatekeepers and your moderate ass is the warm body who gets to decide which product is slightly less repugnant. Changing the structure to tone down the rhetoric is possible and we've seen it with open primaries, ranked choice voting, electoral college reform, etc. but it's kind of hard to do so when it would reduce the power of the extremes and they control the party platforms.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

With cars and guns, I just want to reduce their harm. Neither cars nor guns will be or should be banned. However, I'd rather have Canada's level of gun violence than our own. Likewise, I'd rather have Amsterdam's transit infrastructure over Denver's transit infrastructure.

[bobg]

I for one think we should make assault weapons mandatory in preparation for the real war on cars. The war that takes place when Elon Musk activates skynet so it can coordinate a Tesla FSD attack on all of humanity as revenge for us no longer using his favorite toy twitter.

But I realize that's just the rational centrist in me, and it would never fly in today's political climate.

[TakeFive]

No, I don't want to talk guns or even cars

Think not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Somebody that drops by the forum is highly fond of Singapore

Singapore has neither a gun problem nor a drug problem. Is Singapore liberal or conservative? I have no clue. That's your baseline for what it is possible

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

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I do not believe there is an opportunity for moderate discourse on that issue, or many other issues, now that the Democratic Party has followed what the Republican Party did two decades earlier. I just don't bother with discourse anymore. And I quietly hope that sitting in the middle, hiding, eventually results in each extreme eviscerating the other, before I am eviscerated in the crossfire. (Whether that is political evisceration, or eventually real-world evisceration, I will leave to science fiction.)

The Right scares me; the left irritates me no end
Here I am stuck in the middle.

Clowns to the left of me; Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle with you

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bobg

I for one think we should make assault weapons mandatory in preparation for the real war on cars. The war that takes place when Elon Musk activates skynet so it can coordinate a Tesla FSD attack on all of humanity as revenge for us no longer using his favorite toy twitter.

But I realize that's just the rational centrist in me, and it would never fly in today's political climate.

Wait, doesn't George Soros control the launch codes for skynet?

At least machine domination/slaughter of humanity provides a clear, workable solution to America's gender crisis.

[TakeFive]

Priceless

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Wait, doesn't George Soros control the launch codes for skynet?

At least machine domination/slaughter of humanity provides a clear, workable solution to America's gender crisis.

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

You get what you tolerate

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

If you want to sit down and calmly discuss concerns over tea with Denethor as he screams slobbering from the tops of the walls for everyone to flee, fine, good luck to you.

You likely couldn't care less about the number of conventions/conferences held in downtown Denver - Understandable. The Downtown Denver Partnership has a very different point of view. I can assure you that Scottsdale is happy to absorb whatever conference business passes on Denver. In Season, when I do rideshare, I meet people from all over the Americas and the World. It's fascinating, it's fun and I make some money.

Not familiar with your neighborhood but if you survey the landscape larger urban centers are heading in the Wrong Direction. Define it however you wish but those are the facts.

BTW, what you tolerate is an enforcement problem.

[TakeFive]

Sounds like Tulsa is doing well

Originally Posted by BG918

Same chances the Tabor 2 tower gets built and/or the Rockies win the World Series.

The new BMX Headquarters looks cool. The under construction SANTA FE SQUARE looks to be a really nice mixed-use development. City doing city stuff including a new museum. Tulsa even getting its own Diverging Diamond Interchange. Tulsa even have a share of Homeless - over 1,100.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Priceless


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

You get what you tolerate

You likely couldn't care less about the number of conventions/conferences held in downtown Denver - Understandable. The Downtown Denver Partnership has a very different point of view. I can assure you that Scottsdale is happy to absorb whatever conference business passes on Denver. In Season, when I do rideshare, I meet people from all over the Americas and the World. It's fascinating, it's fun and I make some money.

Not familiar with your neighborhood but if you survey the landscape larger urban centers are heading in the Wrong Direction. Define it however you wish but those are the facts.

BTW, what you tolerate is an enforcement problem.

nm. you're right.. I 100% said I didn't care.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

And maybe that is the point - you know our mods are not strict and have let this fly for a long time. I'm sure a lot of them are operating in the spirit of free discourse - that you have the right to speak your mind and say what you want to say even if it strays into trollish behavior. And by constantly being right on the edge of acceptable and trollish you may be able to do three things to an urbanist forum:
1. Sow discord.
2. Be annoying enough to cause people to leave.
3. Cause enough digression and off-topic discussion to derail pro-growth organizing and discussion (have you noticed all of these trolls haaaate new construction and density? remember our old trolls who were banned for things like loving Pueblo too much?)

To be honest, we need less of whatever this is and more people like Take 5 - I may disagree with his data analysis and his opinion on the suburbs, but at least he keeps most of his posts relevant and has opinions about solutions and causes of issues. He posts often and debates his views without insulting everyone and everything.

I would argue that one does not need to hurl insults in order to engage in trolling behavior, and that both of the forum members that you are discussing here are equally guilty of "being right on the edge of acceptable and trollish." Both of these forum members check all three boxes you mentioned, and both often succeed in derailing the pro-growth discussion.

Case and point - just look at the last page of discussion here. We have one forum member who repeatedly and successfully goads others into having to defend their (usually very well-reasoned) positions by offering up increasingly absurd statements to the contrary until they get exactly what they want - e.g. "Nevermind, I don't want to have this conversation with you - you win"

There's a very good reason I choose not to engage with this person. A good devil's advocate can help foster conversation. Somebody who merely acts as an unceasing contrarian shuts good conversation down.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Case and point - just look at the last page of discussion here. We have one forum member who repeatedly and successfully goads others into having to defend their (usually very well-reasoned) positions by offering up increasingly absurd statements to the contrary until they get exactly what they want - e.g. "Nevermind, I don't want to have this conversation with you - you win"

There's a very good reason I choose not to engage with this person. A good devil's advocate can help foster conversation. Somebody who merely acts as an unceasing contrarian shuts good conversation down.

The fact that I am not even sure who you are talking about (is it me?) makes me think you’re just a bit overly sensitive. Or more likely, one of those people on the relative extremes who really just wants everybody to agree with you and who has no real appetite for debate.

This is a forum where most people agree on most things; at least, when we stay on topic. That can easily make disagreement come off as “an unceasing contrarian.” What I hear you saying is “my way or the highway.”

[TakeFive]

Heh... How you doing up there in your new digs anyway

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

nm. you're right.. I 100% said I didn't care.

For the longest time I've been a BIG fan of conventions and tourism in general due to the economic benefits. But in reality most people don't pay it any mind. I mean it's not a requirement.

So when I assumed you were among the great majority of those who paid no attention instead of the minority where I hang, it wasn't intended to be an insult. But now that I know you belong to my small crowd of convention lovers I'll be sure to remember.

Just to clarify in case it's not clear and you didn't read it as intended - in my 1st and last statements my use of "you" was intended as an impersonal pronoun and not meant for you personally. In hindsight I'm not sure the flow of my thoughts was the best.

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

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The fact that I am not even sure who you are talking about (is it me?) makes me think you’re just a bit overly sensitive. Or more likely, one of those people on the relative extremes who really just wants everybody to agree with you and who has no real appetite for debate.

This is a forum where most people agree on most things; at least, when we stay on topic. That can easily make disagreement come off as “an unceasing contrarian.” What I hear you saying is “my way or the highway.”

I think he was talking about me.

[TakeFive]

Moving Right Along

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

What are the chances that the Dikeous actually build a 17 story office tower in Golden Triangle?

It's seems eerily quiet and I'm beginning to wonder if there will be any groundbreakings in the 2nd half of the year in the city center area (not counting affordable housing or Cherry Creek).

What's strange is that the stock and bond markets are doing well. But there is concern for many RE investments and the normally important bank lending for construction/RE loans is a bit stressed. Private Equity stands ready I've heard but the rates are a little dicey.

Surely there will be at least one or two more nice projects break ground?

Any guesses?

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

...And we should not count on a "Manhattan Project for climate change" for this. There is no world where you can engineer and build a massive water delivery system for even one city in less than a decade. Because you need more than just the delivery mechanism, you will also need to build storage and treatment and handle interconnections for the new water. Regulatory speedbumps, like the environmental impact, are way down the process after you've already determined how and where you're building the infrastructure. Acquiring the land alone will take forever...

Friend, I have been all around the world and I have seen with my own two eyes most countries doing things of far greater scale than a simple water pipeline that's 600 miles long. China could literally build and complete something like that in 30 days. It's not an exaggeration. If you think it is an exaggeration, go travel to some of these places and see with your own eyes what industrializing countries are accomplishing, it's absolutely astonishing, overwhelming, and inspiring. What took us 150 years, they're doing now in less than 20. They have the will, we don't, that's the only difference. Civilizations have been re-routing water since the dawn of....civilizations.

PS: congress could very easily vote to disregard an EIS for a special project. That could be a part of the package. Better yet, FEMA could declare a disaster under existing rules exempting them from EPA interference...there's many ways to get this done but if there's no will, you're right there's no way.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

My primary reason for posting this is that when Greystar makes a move like this people notice.

Cookies and Cream?

My secondary reason for posting this is I knew laniroj would be interested (although who knows with him from day to day? )

This is very interesting, but are we just believing Greystar is going to cap rent growth arbitrarily? Sounds like a headline to me. Are they recording a rent covenant or use restriction to ensure rent is capped at CPI?! Methinks not...but hey I'm all for it if they are building workforce housing - let them say whatever they want!