DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[vblack]

Originally Posted by mhays

Do you have evidence of some kind, any kind?

There's this:

https://disappearingwest.org/factsheets/colorado.pdf

[TakeFive]

Let's review some macro trends

Originally Posted by vblack

There's this:

https://disappearingwest.org/factsheets/colorado.pdf

During recovery from the Great Recession an amazing amount of development was focused on the city center. It was fed by the Great Millennial Migration to urban areas. That's especially true of Denver along with Seattle.

For several years virtually all of the suburban development was upscale in nature. This was Contrary to the typical recovery to previous recessions when lots of 'starter' home neighborhoods were built. Consequently the Denver metro area is now plagued by a lack of affordability. Despite the added density of apartments downtown on the whole downtown is NOT considered affordable.

Finally, finally developers are moving to build more affordable communities with a wider variety of price points. Metro Denver desperately needs more affordable housing. With respect to 84th and Federal I'll assume this housing will be more affordable. But aside from open space you won't see small homes on large lots. It's exactly what the metro area needs.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by vblack

There's this:

https://disappearingwest.org/factsheets/colorado.pdf

Do you have evidence related to your point?

We know sprawl is happening, and it's bad for several reasons. Your point was suggesting infill having no effect on sprawl.

[vblack]

Originally Posted by mhays

Do you have evidence related to your point?

We know sprawl is happening, and it's bad for several reasons. Your point was suggesting infill having no effect on sprawl.

Let's use the table to get an estimate. It says that between 2001 and 2011, 233 square miles of natural area were lost to urban development in Colorado. That works out to about 150,000 acres, or 1,000 parcels the size of the Westminster parcel in question (150 acres) over that 10 year period, statewide.

How many infill parcels of 150 acres were there in the Denver metro area between 2001 and 2011 that could be consumed for development? If they're smaller then we'll need more of them. Let's say only one in 10 of those urban development acres were consumed in the Denver metro - 90% outside Denver. That would mean no less than 100 parcels equivalent. This single one is remarkable just for its existence at all. We would have noticed 10 infill parcels of this size being consumed every year for 10 years straight across the metro area.

Infill may make a marginal difference in natural area lost to development, but that's about it.

[seventwenty]

Do you propose us banning everyone?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

We know sprawl is happening, and it's bad for several reasons. Your point was suggesting infill having no effect on sprawl.

I just recalled what I wanted to ask you. While you've mentioned it before, at the time I didn't care but now I'm curious. What's the difference between King County bus service and Sound Transit bus service?

[mhays]

Sound Transit runs longer routes around the metro area, typically expresses often on HOV lanes on freeways. King County focuses on local routes in King County. The outer counties also have their own bus systems and have lines that come into Seattle.

[TakeFive]

^ Gracias

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

That's hundreds of homes being added to market supply that otherwise would have to be built elsewhere, so indeed, it means less sprawl.

I personally don't get why we need a 150-acre "scenic farm" in the middle of town, lol. If it was a park or something that people could actually use and enjoy, that might be different.

Agreed. I really don't understand the somewhat uniquely Colorado thing of protecting blighted or undeveloped land for the sake of "open space". We would rather see baren, prairie dog plagued dirt than homes built centered around a formal park, playground, etc...makes no sense to me. Most suburban municipalities have open space requirements in their charters, and many are like 30%+. Where the open space makes sense to me is when it acts as a buffer to further sprawl (either encroaching sprawl or expanding sprawl). We need more of that while simultaneously increasing density in Town centers and urban centers...

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by vblack

Does infilling prevent or even lessen sprawl? The evidence is far from clear, to say the least.

In some ways, infilling is like putting people in ever-larger office floors, to the point where people are very far away from any windows. That sort of thinking has fallen out of favor, because as it turns out, we like to see and experience some vestige of a non-built-up world around us.

It would be unfortunate to have the nearest parcel bigger than a playground miles and miles away.

Are you remotely knowledgeable about this area of Westminster? There are hundreds, maybe a thousand acres of high quality open space surrounding this location. This kind of suburban infill makes total sense. There are existing amenities and in place infrastructure leading to a substantially reduced equivalent impact than what new sprawl exhibits. Is it a car dependent location? Yes...but then so is pretty much everywhere except maybe one or two neighborhoods in central Denver. Context is everything, no need for open space here as this location is already so well served by those types of passive amenities.

[tommyboy733]

Originally Posted by corey

While I don’t see anything special and worth preserving about this office building, I do question the need to redo the exterior. I am REALLY tired of American hospitals spending enormous amounts of money on unnecessary things. It is a huge reason why healthcare costs are so insanely high in the US. To me this wasting of money is very offensive. They can create rooms for homeless patients just fine without changing the exterior of this building.

From the article "it’s cheaper to provide a month of housing than to keep patients for a single night"

Building a housing for 100 people or whatever, many of which will be poor seniors, is cheaper than housing them in the ER or in acute care. This is a cost-cutting investment. Shelters are waaaaaaaay cheaper than a hospital. I believe this will waste less money based on results from other institutions that have experimented with this.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by vblack

How about making the whole thing open space?

How much acreage is consumed by development in the Denver metro every year?

Will *not* developing this 150 acres make any difference?

If there are 2,300 homes planned, the average metro occupancy per unit is something like 2.3, so to answer your question...YES it will make a difference for 5,290 people. That should matter. It's worth debate. Put some density on the parcel so it can preserve some open space on-sight - or better yet maybe they can actually improve open space to park land or other more usable land that can serve more people.

Why do people think that new homes and businesses do NOT benefit people? Why do some of us have to explain to others that this is a good thing? I don't understand this thinking in Colorado. THESE ARE HOMES AND LIVELIHOODS FOR PEOPLE. Why are people not a priority in our state. I'm gonna have to move if the front range growth thing passes...mainly because I'll be out of business but also because it makes my skin crawl - it's sense of entitlement taken to the extreme.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Exactly!

I suspect most people don't realize how accurate you are here. I think it's called the Circle of Life


When you post such a simple (if accurate) idea, it goes right over everybody's head.


Governments have been subsidizing their cities in one form or fashion since Hector was a pup.

Here, it's merely a small contribution to what looks to be a quality, compact (aside from open space) development. 2,500 new well-paid employees plus the multiplier affect will pay back the city many times over in various city taxes. It's a win-win approach to growth.

Yep. I look at Minneapolis as the best of these examples - their economy is so remarkably stable with the concentration of fortune 500 and outside profit money constantly flowing in. A $1.5mm incentive is like a couple months of economic benefits that 2,500 jobs brings locally. If Louisville is smart, they will require this site to also develop adequate housing for all of these jobs. Otherwise, Louisville will be just like Boulder with the proletariat (making $100k-$150k) commuting into Louisville every single day, filling up 36 and promoting that good ol' brown cloud.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by laniroj

If there are 2,300 homes planned, the average metro occupancy per unit is something like 2.3, so to answer your question...YES it will make a difference for 5,290 people. That should matter. It's worth debate. Put some density on the parcel so it can preserve some open space on-sight - or better yet maybe they can actually improve open space to park land or other more usable land that can serve more people.

Why do people think that new homes and businesses do NOT benefit people? Why do some of us have to explain to others that this is a good thing?

I guess what you would have to explain to me is how 5,300 new residents far from the urban core and away from our major transit investments considered good planning. I don't have sentimental feeling about keeping it open space for the sake of keeping it open space, but this is an awful location for development. It would demonstrate to me that we have learned nothing about planning across the front range since the early 90's.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Yep. I look at Minneapolis as the best of these examples - their economy is so remarkably stable with the concentration of fortune 500 and outside profit money constantly flowing in. A $1.5mm incentive is like a couple months of economic benefits that 2,500 jobs brings locally. If Louisville is smart, they will require this site to also develop adequate housing for all of these jobs. Otherwise, Louisville will be just like Boulder with the proletariat (making $100k-$150k) commuting into Louisville every single day, filling up 36 and promoting that good ol' brown cloud.

The thing that is wrong about it is that medtronic doesn't need the money and they wont even notice the money. Its five-one-thousandths of one percent of their revenue from last year. Yet its a good amount of money for a small city like Louisville, who, as you note might not see that many benefits if people just commute in from outside. Small municipalities providing corporate welfare to companies that don't need it just isn't right and its a race to the bottom for cities around the country.

[vblack]

Can there ever be too many people in an area?

Does adding more people ever cease being a "good thing"?

We will end up with a megalopolis stretching from Fort Collins down to Pueblo?

[vblack]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

The thing that is wrong about it is that medtronic doesn't need the money and they wont even notice the money. Its five-one-thousandths of one percent of their revenue from last year. Yet its a good amount of money for a small city like Louisville, who, as you note might not see that many benefits if people just commute in from outside. Small municipalities providing corporate welfare to companies that don't need it just isn't right and its a race to the bottom for cities around the country.

Exactly.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by vblack

Can there ever be too many people in an area?

Does adding more people ever cease being a "good thing"?

We will end up with a megalopolis stretching from Fort Collins down to Pueblo?

Yes. But we are way off from that limit. There's plenty of capacity to shove more bodies into the metro area. We could easily hold the entire metro population in Denver City limits with plenty of open space left over for the granola munchers to get out and connect with Mother Earth and enjoy their vegan-based quinoa bowl. The carrying capacity is there, though there's good argument that the current development model needs to be modified.

You clearly are positing the Colorado's population is too large and that the growth that is occurring is a bad thing and detrimental to current residents' quality of life. But what is your idea for stopping this? Do you want growth limits and development boundaries?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Do you want growth limits and development boundaries?

Secession from the union, tight immigration controls, and large dams where our waters leave our borders. And possibly a wall. Obviously.

Two years mandatory service for all citizens, female and male, in the Colorado State Guard.

Overflight treaties and free trade agreements with neighboring states and Texas. We’ll need access to Texas ports. To keep the peace, Texans get 90 days visitation with no visas and discounted elk tags.

Or we can cap residential growth Boulder/Lakewood style and price out all but the richest and whitest. Call that the California model. Different strokes for different folks. I vote secession.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by vblack

Medtronic ought to be paying Louisville, to make up for the impact on the infrastructure and the commonwealth their activities will create.

I simply don't care for "incentives" for massive multinational corporations that don't need them.

Hmm, normally I would understand this sentiment, but this site was already home to 2500+ workers when it was active 15 years ago. They are basically just reactivating the site. And the city is going to require expanding/extending roads for connectivity (specifically, the one by Monarch HS).