Apologies for being redundant, but just to recap, here is a long list of alternatives to tearing down neighborhoods for EIFS boxes and McMansions:
- Historic preservation - Subdividing older structures - Eliminating parking minimum requirements - Mid-rise, small-lot infill - Accessory dwelling units by right - Disincentivizing land speculation with a new tax - Developing parking lots and empty lots - Repurposing abandoned buildings (churches, schools, offices, etc) - Redeveloping blighted corridors (Colorado, Federal, Colfax etc) - Consolidating public services to free up public-owned sites - More density around train stations - Making it easier to maximize density along major corridors and TOD areas - Streamlining laws that effect condo sales We CAN grow and have nice things, too! I love Denver and hope we stay "Denver" as we eventually become a city of a million people. Let Dallas be Dallas or whatever. |
Quote:
Quote:
What I don't want to do is relegate density to certain areas only. We only have so many more hospitals left that can move out of town. What we're talking about is converting industrial land to multi-family residential. Maybe that's all that's going to work in Denver, but I don't want this city to be a split between Mayberry and Manhattan. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
There's good things about every single Denver neighborhood. Why don't we keep those things at all cost, and let developers build around what we have now? The problem is Denver has gotten itself into a technically-virtuous cycle of higher-income in-migration. In this dynamic, renters and lower-income homeowners are extremely vulnerable. The answer to this problem isn't more housing instability and development chaos. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We are a long way off from a balanced medium of planning and adequate housing supply. The nature of government is to grow, thus why planning is such a hard thing to get right. All of the places that folks want to save and love the most, including all those lovely historic things you speak of, were developed BEFORE rigorous, burdensome, prescriptive zoning standards. What are people so afraid of? The current system is not working nor is it even close to working - there is ample evidence of that. We are building less interesting places and projects and segregating uses more intricately since zoning came about and it seems to me EVERYONE thinks that what is happening now is not better than what happened 100 years ago. In general, I do not think most on here or the general public understand just how prescriptive zoning and design standards have become. Setbacks, height, road width, life/safety access, parking requirements and stall sizes, mandatory turn radius for a hook and ladder truck to fight a single family home fire, building opening %'s, build-to requirements, etc etc the list goes on. ALL of these (often overlapping) standards and requirements are contributing to and helping create boring and homogeneous development. Could many developers step up and do a better job, absolutely there is no debate on that, but don't for one second think that the more requirements and prescriptive standards will produce more interesting places - that will not work. Example: I'd love to go out a build a food truck court adjacent to one of my projects and in fact have tried to do so. It's not possible in the City of Denver (unless of course the City does it on public property where they don't have to follow all of their own standards). Plus those food trucks can't be within 500 feet from an existing restaurant - so basically no where in the center city with a zoning that would accommodate restaurant use. The devil is always in the details and so much of our discussion on here is high level. The folks executing these projects and administering this zoning are dealing with hundreds of pages of standards and details, all of which effectively limit what can and cannot be done. if you don't believe me, start reading the neighborhood plans, station area plans, zoning code, building code and amendments, green codes and programs, etc... |
Quote:
All this swirls around whether a school is too brown/black, too white, or that nice sweet-spot of diversity fueled by upper middle class households pouring their money and attention into the school. Once again, race and socio-economic status rears it's head. Because everything is about race at this point when you're talking about neighborhoods in Denver. Is it any wonder that YIMBY Denver is constantly virtue signalling? |
Quote:
1. The restaurants at 7th and Grant - how recently were those gut renovated? 2. First gen (RENT-era) "urban living" townhomes throughout LoHi and Uptown routinely get demo'd for land assembly and ultimately big boxes. 3. The Golden Triangle no longer resembles a neighborhood from any one era because it's been redeveloped cyclically. 4. Everything on Speer gets demolished every 20-30 years throughout history. 5. Cherry Creek Whole Foods, and encompassing block, is about to be demolished well before the 30 year mark. I think the City participated in building that Clayton garage like 10 years ago? 6. Breweries throughout RiNo are being torn down just 10 years after being gut reno'd from shell condition. What you're missing is that a site's potential HBU (highest & best use) frequently dwarfs what is currently there even with depreciation tricks and high-end tenants. In fact, you viewing Denver development through the lens of sitting on a property for 39.5 years to maximize the depreciation schedule, explains the rest of what you've said. Development pressure here isn't yet as abusive in say, Houston (or Dallas) where a row of new slot homes got demo'd before anyone even moved in, for Trammell Crow (also one of the usual suspects here in Denver) to tear them all down for a 730-unit complex. https://www.texasmonthly.com/article...l-estate-boom/ "It was on the eastern edge of this neighborhood that I saw one of the most classically Houston real estate business phenomena ever. Not far from Yale Street and adjacent to a large vacant lot, a small-time developer bought and knocked down a few old bungalows and replaced them with a line of town houses. Before anyone moved in, Trammell Crow Residential bought and demolished them to make way for one of two upscale mid-rise apartment complexes now sprawling over the site. The 730 new units added to the already-cramped neighborhood—the city has done little or nothing to alleviate traffic on increasingly overburdened Yale Street—are renting for between $1,500 a month, for a 630-square-foot one-bedroom, and $2,860, for a plush two-bedroom." Quote:
We've had highly-prescriptive city plans before. In fact, Denver is one of the best examples of the "City Beautiful" movement. Those prescriptive plans required less bureaucracy to implement than permitting some out-of-state REIT's (who will eventually sue everyone who touches their transaction) latest $150 million boxy beast. Gee I wonder why. I abhor that "City Beautiful" coincided with redlining and abject racism in housing, but today we have an opportunity to achieve similar progressive advancements with an added focus on racial equity. Quote:
I agree that parking minimums should be eliminated city-wide. I still happen to believe that handicap spaces and other stall "attributes" (not just size) should be regulated. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Good God, we just got another TakeFive clone who thinks their opinion stacks up against professional developers, planners, and reams of research and articles because their gut makes them feel a certain way.
|
Quote:
Proceed with bemoaning every policy and plan in a city that's main problem is being too desirable. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We spend hardly anything on mass transit serving the inner city - I guess the outdated Welton Street light rail, and the MallRide (which is RTD's best service). Most of Denver's core is a transit donut hole, with ever-increasing traffic, pedestrian safety and parking issues. We just spent $6 billion on mass transit that skips the inner city, serves the Airport and some suburbs, which upsets all the other suburbs who then blame Denver. We're operating buses and trains across thousands of square miles, from Longmont down to Castle Rock, and nobody is particularly happy except for the 9-5 commuters in a few important suburbs. We've had the RTD debate for pages upon pages on here so I should really let it go, but that's a very baiting comment. :P |
Quote:
Quote:
Schools tend to be judged primarily by academic performance and/or athletic performance. But the better (if impossible) way to evaluate school districts is by how well they serve their total student population. Cherry Creek Schools Not counting Boulder, CCSD is far and away the Best Run school district. They can check the academic box as well as athletics box but they are also well regarded by parents of "Special Needs" children as well as more basic 'learning disabilities'. Their breadth of educational services for their total student profile is outstanding. CCSD hasn't lost an election for more funding since the 1960's. This not only allows for 'capability' but provides for better planning and efficiency. CCSD is right at 50% 'white' from a low of 26% at one HS to a high of 66% at another HS. Aurora certainly an has ample supply of subsidized housing (etc) but I have a warm spot in my heart for the many parents who work two jobs so that their children can attend Cherry Creek Schools. DougCo Schools Aside from the political dissonance, the schools benefit from good demographics, good funding, good teachers etc so yeah their school are quite good. JeffCo Schools If you want to predict the outcome of an election for needed funding - flip a coin. One could say the schools are efficient (out of necessity); not really the best way to run a school district. Schools themselves are fine. Adams Co Schools may work with the tightest budget and demographic challenges but it appears they have a good collection of dedicated educators. Denver Schools I would use a different lens to evaluate Denver Schools. With the largest student population and being an urban district their challenges run the gamut. I am impressed with their support of public charter schools. Despite various controversies, their effort to provide for a large and very diverse population is impressive IMO. The schools are generally well funded and generally liked and appreciated by the parents. |
You want to know what's wrong with me... I'll tell you what's wrong
"You can't handle the Truth" - Jack Nicholson Quote:
"You can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy." So for those times when I get into a nostalgic mood of Colorado I'll dial up an old favorite of mine. John Denver ♥ Take Me Home Country roads, take me homeOn other occasions I'll have a different Colorado/country mood. Some have called "This Land Is Your Land" an alternative national anthem. A product of the Great Depression, Woodie Guthrie's song dates back to 1944. Bruce Springsteen covered the song in 2018. Bruce Springsteen - This Land is Your Land (Woody Guthrie) When the sun come shining, then I was strollingDon't take life so seriously that you fail to smell the (country) roses or enjoy the music-videos. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think North is also becoming somewhat like East, maybe a little more diverse, which is great. I think most families in DPS value diversity which is obviously a totally different planet than the suburban districts. Study to ace a test vs. study to ace life. |
I'd be somewhat content for them to ace the test. Ivy still opens doors... you don't have to be any good at life with that on your resume.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 8:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.