DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[mojiferous]

Oh, and it was never a bipartisan effort. The GOP fought long and hard to make sure that the residents of Chicago public housing were made out to the "welfare queens" and violent criminals that should be isolated and avoided. They worked to defund and reduce public housing programs and public assistance programs. They kept the minimum wage low and any help out of reach of most Americans. By the time the low-rise mixed-income projects were being built they had faded as a factor in most urban politics. Suburbs could easily build public housing too! But for the most part they don't because it is not and has never been a bipartisan effort.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

It seems like one of those projects near 8th and Lincoln must be starting soon

Just posted a Capitol Hill roundup. No signs of construction yet, but they're very active on the permitting side.


https://denverinfill.com/2023/01/cap...-jan-2023.html

[TakeFive]

Have I ever mentioned how silly and stupid I think politics is?

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Oh, and it was never a bipartisan effort. The GOP fought long and hard to make sure that the residents of Chicago public housing were made out to the "welfare queens" and violent criminals that should be isolated and avoided. They worked to defund and reduce public housing programs and public assistance programs. They kept the minimum wage low and any help out of reach of most Americans. By the time the low-rise mixed-income projects were being built they had faded as a factor in most urban politics. Suburbs could easily build public housing too! But for the most part they don't because it is not and has never been a bipartisan effort.

I couldn't care less about political bluster, base-pleasing propaganda and posturing from either the left or the right.

What I care about is what happens after they leave the tee vee cameras and loud speakers behind, go back into the building, close the doors, go into conference rooms and get down to business. Either they accomplish something or they don't. When they accomplishment something significant what is it?

Credit William Claiborne February 6, 2000 per WaPo:

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley today signed an unprecedented $1.5 billion agreement to demolish virtually all of the city's high-rise public housing developments, widely regarded as the nation's worst examples of failed public housing policy.

Calling the agreement "historic" because of the magnitude of Chicago's public housing problems, Cuomo told a news conference the redevelopment plan reflects a "fundamentally different national policy" that HUD hopes will replace 100,000 deteriorating public housing units in cities across the country...

"We are going to take down the failed high-rises and stop putting bandages on bullet wounds," Cuomo said in an interview after the news conference. "We aren't going to invest in high-rises anymore, and we're going to replace those that are there with something that works."

All the groundwork for this fundamental change in housing approach by HUD was worked out in a lengthy process of negotiating through the 1990's.

BTW, Clinton was still President when the above was signed but it's also important to note this factoid:

Republicans swept the 1994 elections and won control of both the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years.

Republicans retained their majorities in both chambers though their margin in the House eroded after the 1998 elections. J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois succeeded Georgia's Newt Gingrich as Speaker in the 106th Congress.

That is literally the definition of bi-partisanship given Congress must pass funding for all government functions.

[TakeFive]

I'm not aware if this has been pointed out before?

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...Pos=1#cxrecs_s

A New York-based multifamily investment firm has made a play in Denver’s Uptown neighborhood for a new seven-story residential community.

Currently, the property is home to a Wells Fargo Bank branch as well as a park called Grant Street Plaza on the northern end. An LLC associated with Abacus Capital Group made the purchase of 1777 N. Grant St. and 1775 N. Grant St. from seller Wells Fargo Bank. The existing building, parking structure and plaza are up for demolition to make way for a new build.

[TakeFive]

Speaking of density metro-wide

These guys completely flew under my radar so it was fun to read about them in the Denver Business Journal.

Multifamily developer inks new office lease as it doubles down on Denver
Jan 18, 2023 By Kate Tracy – Reporter , Denver Business Journal

The company has 22 apartment projects in various stages of development in the metro area.

A growing multifamily developer has selected the Denver Tech Center as the location for its second headquarters. The Garrett Companies, an Indianapolis, Indiana-based firm that develops, builds and manages multifamily apartments, recently leased the eighth floor of 5075 S. Syracuse St. in the Denver Tech Center for a total of 22,000 square feet.

Kitch said the firm looked downtown and even south of Lone Tree before landing on the building in the Tech Center. “The Tech Center just seemed to be more centrally located for everybody,” he said.

https://www.thegarrettco.com/experience

SOUTHLANDS II - Aurora

The sister community to FIVE810 Southlands, Southlands II is constructed right next door. Walking distance to great dining and shopping locations

All images courtesy The Garrett Companies

These folks are smart developers; no wonder they are having so much success. Who else is building apartments with a 'missing middle' appeal that includes garages. There must be tons of people wanting to rent a unit with a garage.

[i4isoar]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

With Me Context is Everything

America's grand experiment with affordable HUD-funded high rise housing was a utter disaster, most notably in Chicago and St. Louis. They became gang & drug infested prisons for those who lived there. This goes back to the ~1950's.

Thanks to a huge bi-partisan effort tons of money were poured into tearing down all the high rise buildings and replacing them with low rise mixed-income projects. Denver benefitted when it's own HUD mess although low rise was torn down and replaced with new mixed-income low or mid-rise housing.

Aside from the interesting guy I picked up who was from Switzerland currently living in Singapore and visiting Phoenix, Singapore is mostly Asian, especially Chinese etc and has a whole different ethos.

America has done little to solve its drug and crime problem in the last 70 years and it's now getting worse and worse again.

When dude steals cars etc. in Denver da judge say "don't do that again" and lets dude out of jail. Within 24 hours dude is back to stealing cars etc.

I have no interest in debating conservative vs liberal but I can proclaim that subsidized affordable high rise housing will never happen; it's a non-starter.

Ummm.... just so we're clear on the record here, I wasn't trying to make this political. Nor am I trying to suggest anywhere that the government should be the one managing these high-rise developments - last I checked, AMLI was still a private company, so I don't see where you got this idea about HUD funding for high-rise buildings in Denver.

I bring up Singapore as an example of a city that has plenty of ugly high-rise buildings in it, but is still considered a vibrant place in spite of that. My point is: ugly architecture, by itself, does not necessarily detract from a city's character, quality of life, or "urban fabric". Tokyo, Miami, Phoenix, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Hong Kong... they all have plenty of ugly buildings too, which people often forget about because it's usually the nicer parts that show up in postcards or tourism ads.

Do I wish AMLI's proposed plans for 9th and Broadway looked better? Of course. Do I agree that it looks like a "mediocre Marriott"? Yes, definitely. But at the end of the day, it's bringing more housing and more revenue (in terms of both taxes and more customers for local businesses) to that area, and to the city as a whole, and it's not much worse than many other buildings already built in that area.

[TakeFive]

Thanks for the clarification and your input

Originally Posted by i4isoar

Ummm.... just so we're clear on the record here, I wasn't trying to make this political. Nor am I trying to suggest anywhere that the government should be the one managing these high-rise developments - last I checked, AMLI was still a private company, so I don't see where you got this idea about HUD funding for high-rise buildings in Denver.

I bring up Singapore as an example of a city that has plenty of ugly high-rise buildings in it, but is still considered a vibrant place in spite of that. My point is: ugly architecture, by itself, does not necessarily detract from a city's character, quality of life, or "urban fabric". Tokyo, Miami, Phoenix, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Hong Kong... they all have plenty of ugly buildings too, which people often forget about because it's usually the nicer parts that show up in postcards or tourism ads.

Do I wish AMLI's proposed plans for 9th and Broadway looked better? Of course. Do I agree that it looks like a "mediocre Marriott"? Yes, definitely. But at the end of the day, it's bringing more housing and more revenue (in terms of both taxes and more customers for local businesses) to that area, and to the city as a whole, and it's not much worse than many other buildings already built in that area.

It never crossed my mind you were being political.

What I responded to was "public housing" in Singapore but whether that means government funded housing there I wouldn't know. Either which way I wouldn't expect you to know the colorful history of public housing in America.

With respect to AMLI it feels like they try to hit a niche for upscale apartments that are marginally more affordable than some others. Other than for the barge effect I also like the design just fine.

Also worth mentioning

is that Andy Cushen writing for DenverInfill did an excellent piece on Sun Valley redevelopment (albeit a little long) which was the 1st coverage of this neighborhood which includes both 'designated affordable' housing along with market rate housing.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Oh, and it was never a bipartisan effort. The GOP fought long and hard to make sure that the residents of Chicago public housing were made out to the "welfare queens" and violent criminals that should be isolated and avoided. They worked to defund and reduce public housing programs and public assistance programs. They kept the minimum wage low and any help out of reach of most Americans. By the time the low-rise mixed-income projects were being built they had faded as a factor in most urban politics. Suburbs could easily build public housing too! But for the most part they don't because it is not and has never been a bipartisan effort.

Chicago has had 3 Republican Mayors since 1900, the most recent ending in 1931. Not sure how the GOP had the power to accomplish what you assert above.

Politics aside, let's dive into your other post. Public housing...commonly referred to as 'the projects' in your typical community meeting were an utter disaster. The public housing strategy was born of the new deal and transformed a couple times, including a Supreme Court ruling in 1948 which administratively outlawed the FHA from 'maintaining homogeneous neighborhoods' (ie the racial segregation). The FHA was doing this by withholding loans both for home purchase and public housing development in certain areas - ie redlining. After this ruling, the racial strategy of public housing was 'technically' addressed and it wasn't until the Gautreaux v CHA in 1969 that the current model abandoning dense high rise in favor of scattered site was essentially mandated. To be clear, both rulings were needed to change the 'redlining' which was still happening. After 30 years of public housing failures, our gubment then introduced housing vouchers, which generally drove the apartment boom in the 60's/70's because it generally pushed occupancies of existing units which led to robust unit creation and a housing squeeze, though nothing of the likes we see today. Throughout the 50's, 60's, 70's public housing was still constructed en masse at a grand scale and still led to the creation of concentrated low incomes households, including with the Section 8 program (enacted in 1974) which then simply transferred unit production to private developers (by way of housing authorities essentially giving developers cash) instead of being done by housing authorities. This was also a massive failure as you can probably guess what happened - pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Alas, in 1986 Congress got rid of most the new construction dollars for Section 8 and essentially replaced it with Section 42 - low income housing tax credit - which followed the scattered site model and left it up to states as to what their housing priorities were for new unit production.

Regardless of politics, your assessment of those who experienced 'public housing' first hand are still vary wary of ANY non-owner-occupied housing. Community meetings are incredibly difficult for this simple fact and all the more reason that local planning departments should be proactively upzoning anywhere/everywhere we can be. If they don't Denver will follow the way of every other major blue city and become an enclave of the rich with a few slots for the lucky low income households who win the lottery.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Credit William Claiborne February 6, 2000 per WaPo:

Our gubment tried this in the post WWII years and it was a terrible disaster and ignited the "blight" movement. We tore down half a million housing units nationwide next to old industrial war factories and only replaced about 1/5 of them.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by i4isoar

I bring up Singapore as an example of a city that has plenty of ugly high-rise buildings in it, but is still considered a vibrant place in spite of that. My point is: ugly architecture, by itself, does not necessarily detract from a city's character, quality of life, or "urban fabric". Tokyo, Miami, Phoenix, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Hong Kong... they all have plenty of ugly buildings too, which people often forget about because it's usually the nicer parts that show up in postcards or tourism ads.

Do I wish AMLI's proposed plans for 9th and Broadway looked better? Of course. Do I agree that it looks like a "mediocre Marriott"? Yes, definitely. But at the end of the day, it's bringing more housing and more revenue (in terms of both taxes and more customers for local businesses) to that area, and to the city as a whole, and it's not much worse than many other buildings already built in that area.

Cap Hill is an excellent example of this. TONS of really ugly 1960's/70's mid-rise buildings everywhere, but it's still one of the best urban fabrics we have with an incredible (by Denver standards) mix of housing/uses.

[TakeFive]

Talk about NIMBY-ism

Kyle Harris/Denverite pens a thorough piece about all the Park Hill Golf Course confusion.

Originally Posted by laniroj

Our gubment tried this in the post WWII years and it was a terrible disaster and ignited the "blight" movement. We tore down half a million housing units nationwide next to old industrial war factories and only replaced about 1/5 of them.

Impressive knowledge and agree with Cap Hill perspective.

[twalm]

Oh look more car-centric development.

We should not be encouraging this type of development as good inflill. It is not mixed-use or walkable. As mentioned it is close to shopping, but residents will have to cross an ocean of parking lots to get there.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Speaking of density metro-wide

These guys completely flew under my radar so it was fun to read about them in the Denver Business Journal.

Multifamily developer inks new office lease as it doubles down on Denver
Jan 18, 2023 By Kate Tracy – Reporter , Denver Business Journal


https://www.thegarrettco.com/experience

SOUTHLANDS II - Aurora






All images courtesy The Garrett Companies

These folks are smart developers; no wonder they are having so much success. Who else is building apartments with a 'missing middle' appeal that includes garages. There must be tons of people wanting to rent a unit with a garage.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by twalm

Oh look more car-centric development.

We should not be encouraging this type of development as good inflill. It is not mixed-use or walkable. As mentioned it is close to shopping, but residents will have to cross an ocean of parking lots to get there.

It's fair to say that Southlands wasn't the best designed 'Lifestyle Center.' It's admittedly been too long since I've seen the area. With the right tenant mix it could be magnet for entertainment and shopping but you need the right mix of restaurants and sports bars etc.

But I'll agree with you with respect to walkability. Tenants who live there really should call for an Uber/Lyft ride.

Speaking of SE Aurora

Southeast Aurora Recreation Center and Fieldhouse Celebrates Grand Opening
January 23, 2023 - Mile High CRE

This week, global design firm Populous and the City of Aurora will celebrate the grand opening of Southeast Aurora’s 77,000-square-foot recreation center and field house at 25400 E Alexander Dr.

“This new recreation center and field house stands apart as a breathtaking example of a community asset that is built to reflect, benefit and showcase its people and its landscape,” said Gudmundur Jonsson, senior architect and principal at Populous. “The City of Aurora now has another cost-effective and operationally-efficient space that will allow it to further serve its community.”

Images courtesy of Populous

[TakeFive]

Side Pocket Topic: The Really Big advantage of HUGE parking lots.

Originally Posted by twalm

Oh look more car-centric development.

We should not be encouraging this type of development as good inflill. It is not mixed-use or walkable. As mentioned it is close to shopping, but residents will have to cross an ocean of parking lots to get there.

Your parents, if they lived in Denver might remember Cinderella City Shopping Center. Let's just say over time it didn't age well but back in the day it was quite the celebrity.

The same vintage of shopping center down here is called Metro Center; 50 years later it looks like a bombed out center. There's no shortage of tenants except homeless tenants don't pay the bills. But not unlike Park Meadows the perimeter drive is thriving with two steak houses (etc) right next door to each other and both places packed with patrons.

Metro Center is (now) in a blue collar area; a lot of Hispanics etc but these hard working people enjoy a night out just as much as anyone. There's also an amusement park called Castles and Coasters

Phoenix's Metrocenter Mall is getting a $1 billion makeover
Nov 21, 2022 by Jessica Boehm - Axios

Last week, the Phoenix City Council agreed to give a tax break to the mall's new owner, clearing the final hurdle so construction can begin early next year.

• The city is taking over ownership of the land so the owners won't have to pay property tax on the project for up to 25 years

https://kjzz.org/content/1738105/met...l-go-its-place

After years of decline, Metrocenter Mall officially closed last year. The new owners, Concord Wilshire Capital and TLG Investment Partners, will work with Hines to create what they call a community-driven walkable village, just off Interstate 17...

“We want to make it special.”
-— Chris Anderson, Hines senior managing director

Development will be done in phases to include parks, an amphitheater and more than 2,600 apartments at different price points. Christine Mackay, Phoenix economic development director, said... “It’s more known as attainable or workforce housing as opposed to subsidized housing,” Mackay said. “But more in the price point of the workforce that is in and around that particular area.”

Nate Sirang, president of Concord Wilshire, called it a rare opportunity, “Eighty acres of land right in the middle, right in the heart of Phoenix and no development opportunities available like this with a mix of uses and the mix of demand.”

Previously, the developers had convinced the city to extend light rail (a couple of miles) across the freeway (think I-25) to the west side of the property. It is scheduled to open in 2024.

And now you know the advantage of huge parking lots; it's prime land just waiting to be densely developed

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Chicago has had 3 Republican Mayors since 1900, the most recent ending in 1931. Not sure how the GOP had the power to accomplish what you assert above.

Politics aside, let's dive into your other post. Public housing...commonly referred to as 'the projects' in your typical community meeting were an utter disaster. The public housing strategy was born of the new deal and transformed a couple times, including a Supreme Court ruling in 1948 which administratively outlawed the FHA from 'maintaining homogeneous neighborhoods' (ie the racial segregation). The FHA was doing this by withholding loans both for home purchase and public housing development in certain areas - ie redlining. After this ruling, the racial strategy of public housing was 'technically' addressed and it wasn't until the Gautreaux v CHA in 1969 that the current model abandoning dense high rise in favor of scattered site was essentially mandated. To be clear, both rulings were needed to change the 'redlining' which was still happening. After 30 years of public housing failures, our gubment then introduced housing vouchers, which generally drove the apartment boom in the 60's/70's because it generally pushed occupancies of existing units which led to robust unit creation and a housing squeeze, though nothing of the likes we see today. Throughout the 50's, 60's, 70's public housing was still constructed en masse at a grand scale and still led to the creation of concentrated low incomes households, including with the Section 8 program (enacted in 1974) which then simply transferred unit production to private developers (by way of housing authorities essentially giving developers cash) instead of being done by housing authorities. This was also a massive failure as you can probably guess what happened - pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. Alas, in 1986 Congress got rid of most the new construction dollars for Section 8 and essentially replaced it with Section 42 - low income housing tax credit - which followed the scattered site model and left it up to states as to what their housing priorities were for new unit production.

Regardless of politics, your assessment of those who experienced 'public housing' first hand are still vary wary of ANY non-owner-occupied housing. Community meetings are incredibly difficult for this simple fact and all the more reason that local planning departments should be proactively upzoning anywhere/everywhere we can be. If they don't Denver will follow the way of every other major blue city and become an enclave of the rich with a few slots for the lucky low income households who win the lottery.

I think you actually got the gist of my ranting correct - Take 5 was insinuating that the issues with public housing were tied to the building of bland high rise housing. I was merely pointing out that the problems with the projects were due to economic isolation and lack of opportunity and had nothing at all to do with their architecture or aesthetics. And he said that the effort to build newer mixed-use, mixed-income developments were bipartisan - so yes, you're correct there too, that the GOP had nothing to do with it!



One thing though - Gautreaux did not do away with dense development, it simply made it much harder because public housing could not isolate and concentrate the poor. Dense development with inclusion and mixed-income would be possible!

The failures of dense PJs were that those high rises were built without thought to services or that anyone that wasn't dirt poor would ever want to live there. I think we could try to build dense public housing again learning from previous mistakes - DHA could probably fill some empty lots in upper Downtown, the area around 14th & Court, Arapahoe Square, and the Golden Triangle with taller, mixed-income, mixed-use developments. More residents in those areas at more affordable price points. The biggest issue of course would be the construction cost, but if we can pay for DIA and interstate expansions we can figure out a way to pay for housing. And probably reap greater benefit.

[twalm]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Side Pocket Topic: The Really Big advantage of HUGE parking lots.

And now you know the advantage of huge parking lots; it's prime land just waiting to be densely developed

Can't argue with that!

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by twalm

Oh look more car-centric development.

We should not be encouraging this type of development as good inflill. It is not mixed-use or walkable. As mentioned it is close to shopping, but residents will have to cross an ocean of parking lots to get there.

You've got to remember change is incremental. For an exurb location like this, any marginal improvement is in the right direction.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

...I was merely pointing out that the problems with the projects were due to economic isolation and lack of opportunity and had nothing at all to do with their architecture or aesthetics. And he said that the effort to build newer mixed-use, mixed-income developments were bipartisan - so yes, you're correct there too, that the GOP had nothing to do with it!...

Not sure why the politics of it matter at all, but let's set the record straight.

1. The problem was not at all economic isolation or lack of opportunity. Many of the public housing communities were developed in previously thriving manufacturing areas (back when manufacturing was still happening here). The reason the housing failed is because the federal government handed out gobs of money to housing authorities who decided it would be a good idea to build them by the thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of units. The 'market' has quite literally never built anything like that. It was a poor product that was very poorly managed and it, predictably, failed. Nearly all of those massive legacy public housing developments have unsolvable deferred maintenance issue to this day and the only real option is to tear them down. Those gobs of money emanated from the New Deal in 1937 and then from LBJ's "Great Society" movement in the 1960's. Both of these eras which produced the framework of our public housing (its successes and failures) featured democrats passing legislation with huge political majorities in both the house and senate.

2. Section 42 is widely considered the most successful housing program in US history and was the replacement for Section 8. Section 42 was passed as part of the tax reform act of 1986 under republican President Reagan and passed by a republican house and republican senate shortly before republicans lost control of both the house and the senate to democrats in the 86' election. The tax reform act passed with majorities from both parties in both houses - it was completely bipartisan.

DHA has built somewhat dense/clustered housing at Mariposa in our new age model, though nothing even approaching the scale of what was done from the 1930's to 970's. NYC has mega projects that consist of thousands of units each. Queensbridge has 3,000+ units! Mariposa has maybe 800 units, all mixed income with some services intertwined and/or nearby.

[TakeFive]

Blue on Blue; Heartache on Heartache

It may just be that Denver is allowing too many apartments to be built, getting too dense.

Maybe the City should push some of that development into the suburbs where's there's lots of open space, nice biking trails and beautiful views of the mountains.

Will the City agree with this?

It should be interesting to hear from mayoral candidates what their position is on this issue.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Not sure why the politics of it matter at all, but let's set the record straight.

1. The problem was not at all economic isolation or lack of opportunity. Many of the public housing communities were developed in previously thriving manufacturing areas (back when manufacturing was still happening here). The reason the housing failed is because the federal government handed out gobs of money to housing authorities who decided it would be a good idea to build them by the thousands (in some cases tens of thousands) of units.

2. Section 42 is widely considered the most successful housing program in US history and was the replacement for Section 8. Section 42 was passed as part of the tax reform act of 1986 under republican President Reagan...

DHA has built somewhat dense/clustered housing at Mariposa in our new age model,

though nothing even approaching the scale of what was done from the 1930's to 970's. NYC has mega projects that consist of thousands of units each. Queensbridge has 3,000+ units! Mariposa has maybe 800 units, all mixed income with some services intertwined and/or nearby.

Ah, I see now - I thought you understood the history and social issues of public housing, and you don't at all.