DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Ich

According to this article, T3 RiNo is supposed to break ground next month!

https://milehighcre.com/pickard-chil...-rino-project/

Good catch and good to know.

What's also interesting is that Hines partner on T3, Ivanhoé Cambridge, is now the proud owner of Two Tabor.

Perhaps if all goes well, they'll follow the advice of wong (about floor plates) and build a Tabor Condo tower. Actually, Ivanhoé Cambridge seems to prefer being more of an equity partner so maybe they'll partner with their Canadian friend Amacon to build Two Tabor condos.

[TakeFive]

There goes the transit funding

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/01/...eviate-crisis/

DENVER (CBS4) – Some Denver voters will soon be asked how they would feel about paying increased sales taxes, property taxes and other taxes to raise $50 million to $55 million a year to support Denver’s homeless population.

Just curious; how much money is currently being spent on homelessness?

Estimates are that the city of Denver currently spends about $50 million per year on homeless services and other charities, and nonprofits contribute another $90 million, according to a 2019 report. Alderman says that’s not enough to help out the more than 5,300 people in metro Denver who are homeless.

She says on an annual basis, at least another $55 million is needed for programs and services, expanding shelter operations, housing subsidies and rental assistance.

I don't have all the answers but I'd want a solution that does more than babysit a population that is static or even growing.

With record low unemployment of 2.5% and a significant percentage of those living off the land fully capable of working there's got to be better answers than what we've been getting.

For those willing to work but unable to make enough to find housing I'd put this as a high priority for support.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by tommyboy733

The parking lot at the NWC of 14th and California was fenced off.. There was some old proposals on this site that faded away, but nothing current that I know off. Does anyone know what's going on?

[IMG]IMG_20200128_085031212_HDR[/IMG]

It looks like there are events on the lot this weekend associated with the outdoor retailer show at the convention center.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Awesome pictures. I think I like this one the best.

Also, this one really illustrates that Curtis Park should be denser.

Curtis park might be able to use more density, but this photo certainly doesn’t prove that at all. An aerial photo with no context proves nothing. Why aren’t you bemoaning the lack if development in arapahoe square? Whoa look at baker and lincoln park! You could fit a million new people into all of the undeveloped and underutilized spaces closer to the cbd before doing anything else and still have the neighborhoods left to destroy


Not to mention how the neighborhood adjacent to curtis park is indeed getting taller and denser by the second. Denver has decades worth if downtown space available still. We talk about having a dynamic city, but booting out the single families does not make for that.

[RyanD]

https://denverinfill.com/blog/2020/0...re-facade.html

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Josefk

While there are undoubtedly a lot of single-family homes in Curtis Park, there is also a ton of "missing middle" type housing both old and new. I'll acknowledge that the neighborhood is very close to the city center, but I would hate to lose a fairly complete mixed-use neighborhood just for the sake of density.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I was speaking to the primarily single family homes section seen in the aerial, which by definition is not missing middle or mixed use. Replacing the poor housing stock will be decried as gentrification while, the nicer stock is already occupied by a bunch of 1 percenters. There are a few opportunities along the corridors, but the likelihood that this area will stay very low density for a long time is high.

Does it have to be a binary choice between scraping SFHs vs adding more density? Judging by the way that we have traditionally zoned and built in Denver for the last several decades, I can understand why this may be the assumption. But there are plenty of historic examples of neighborhoods and structures that blur the line between single-family detached and more urban forms like townhomes (really just a single-family attached) or mixed-use. We have plenty of examples right in our own city of SFHs that were made more urban over time - though the vast majority appear to be pre-war additions to even older structures. Many of the homes in these older neighborhoods have such little side setback that they already have a townhome-like arrangement on their lots. There's also no reason that an addition or additional structure on a lot like this couldn't be several stories taller, or detached and parceled off as a separate property on the alley.

I'm not advocating for saving every single home either - many of them are in poor shape or just simply aren't that special. But if changes could be made in an incremental kind of way that respects the best of the historic architecture, I could easily see a street like Stout start to transform into something more like this example from Chicago which strikes me as the very kind of edge-of-downtown transition neighborhood that I often feel Denver is missing.

[RyanD]

^ I love Chicago Uptown density. It's truly perfect for any ring neighborhoods.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Josefk

While there are undoubtedly a lot of single-family homes in Curtis Park, there is also a ton of "missing middle" type housing both old and new. I'll acknowledge that the neighborhood is very close to the city center, but I would hate to lose a fairly complete mixed-use neighborhood just for the sake of density.

Agreed ~!! The problem isn't that Curtis Park - already a great neighborhood with amazing historical housing stock AND lots of missing middle and even higher density should be even more dense, it's whether NIMBYs in other neighborhoods such as Hill Top, Cherry Creek, Hale, Montclair and others should be able to veto missing middle type density in those neighborhoods.

You have examples such as Hilltop residents vetoing beautiful row houses that would replace a handful of pretty crap 60s era SFH on the basis that it would it "change the character of the neighborhood."

And then there's the recent example of Cap Hill residents (residents of the most dense neighborhood in Denver) opposing a redevelopment plan at the site of the old Whole Foods that would retain Whole Foods while adding residential density through rezoning that would have allowed a new structure with residences above the Whole Foods.

It's pretty clear there's a lot of NIMBY resistance to density pretty much ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

There goes the transit funding

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/01/...eviate-crisis/

Just curious; how much money is currently being spent on homelessness?

I don't have all the answers but I'd want a solution that does more than babysit a population that is static or even growing.

With record low unemployment of 2.5% and a significant percentage of those living off the land fully capable of working there's got to be better answers than what we've been getting.

For those willing to work but unable to make enough to find housing I'd put this as a high priority for support.

So if these numbers are right about homeless spending and homeless numbers (5,300 homeless and $140 million on spending) then we are currently spending about $26,400 per homeless person and the ask is to increase this to $36,792 per person.

It strikes me that we aren't very efficient in our homeless spending. Might be more efficient and better offer bypassing the agencies spending money and handing out cold cash.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

Curtis park might be able to use more density, but this photo certainly doesn’t prove that at all. An aerial photo with no context proves nothing. Why aren’t you bemoaning the lack if development in arapahoe square? Whoa look at baker and lincoln park! You could fit a million new people into all of the undeveloped and underutilized spaces closer to the cbd before doing anything else and still have the neighborhoods left to destroy

Not to mention how the neighborhood adjacent to curtis park is indeed getting taller and denser by the second. Denver has decades worth if downtown space available still. We talk about having a dynamic city, but booting out the single families does not make for that.

I am bemoaning it. A lot. I don't think that Curtis Park lacks development at the periphery, and it's certainly a beautiful historic neighborhood. However, it's desirability and proximity to downtown means that demand will continue to outstrip supply and within a decade, it'll be majority upper middle class and white. We don't need to boot out single family homes, but we do need to allow things like ADUs and subdividing the larger homes into duplexes or more. Otherwise, the neighborhood will be "destroyed".

Originally Posted by mr1138

Does it have to be a binary choice between scraping SFHs vs adding more density? Judging by the way that we have traditionally zoned and built in Denver for the last several decades, I can understand why this may be the assumption. But there are plenty of historic examples of neighborhoods and structures that blur the line between single-family detached and more urban forms like townhomes (really just a single-family attached) or mixed-use. We have plenty of examples right in our own city of SFHs that were made more urban over time - though the vast majority appear to be pre-war additions to even older structures. Many of the homes in these older neighborhoods have such little side setback that they already have a townhome-like arrangement on their lots. There's also no reason that an addition or additional structure on a lot like this couldn't be several stories taller, or detached and parceled off as a separate property on the alley.

I'm not advocating for saving every single home either - many of them are in poor shape or just simply aren't that special. But if changes could be made in an incremental kind of way that respects the best of the historic architecture, I could easily see a street like Stout start to transform into something more like this example from Chicago which strikes me as the very kind of edge-of-downtown transition neighborhood that I often feel Denver is missing.

100% agree.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Agreed ~!! The problem isn't that Curtis Park - already a great neighborhood with amazing historical housing stock AND lots of missing middle and even higher density should be even more dense, it's whether NIMBYs in other neighborhoods such as Hill Top, Cherry Creek, Hale, Montclair and others should be able to veto missing middle type density in those neighborhoods.

You have examples such as Hilltop residents vetoing beautiful row houses that would replace a handful of pretty crap 60s era SFH on the basis that it would it "change the character of the neighborhood."

And then there's the recent example of Cap Hill residents (residents of the most dense neighborhood in Denver) opposing a redevelopment plan at the site of the old Whole Foods that would retain Whole Foods while adding residential density through rezoning that would have allowed a new structure with residences above the Whole Foods.

It's pretty clear there's a lot of NIMBY resistance to density pretty much ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE.

Also, 100% agree.

[twister244]

So, this isn't specific to Denver per-se, but I came across this article highlighting the changes in domestic migration patterns due to changes in the tax law that took effect a couple years ago.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/so-long...d=hp_lead_pos6

Obviously Denver has elevated real estate prices, but those costs are somewhat offset by our incredibly low property tax rates. I just got my bill in the mail for my condo from the city, and it still shocks me how low it is here compares to places like CA, NY, Chicago, etc. I can't help but think this is one contributing factor that will keep our appeal for domestic migration high in the short-term.

[Agent Orange]

Re: Homelessness tax

I am troubled by the fact that central cities in large, often left leaning metropolitan areas bear an outsized burden in regards to the homelessness crisis (i.e. the opiate-mental health-unaffordable housing crisis). I am not against my taxes going to help resolve and/or alleviate these issues, but let's be honest about the fact that a large contingent of our resident urban campers do not hail from the City and County of Denver. The suburbs and rural counties where many folks are coming from are not paying into our funds to combat homelessness, not to mention the other 49 states. It's unrealistic to expect this, but really we should be getting money from the State and the Federal government. Instead, we'll create more incentives for people "experiencing homelessness" to come here and then we'll have the ask taxpayers for more money in a few more years.

Re: Curtis Park

I live in Curtis Park and, yes, there is a lot more than just SFHs. But nearly all of that low scale missing middle housing was there a century or more ago. It's a bit silly that the density has been and will continue to be frozen in time thanks to zoning and the historical status. I'd be in favor of saving maybe a three block stretch of one street (maybe Stout) as a bit of a museum piece for posterity, but let the rest of the neighborhood evolve. The rowhome I live in is falling apart, has terrible insulation and sound proofing. The logical thing would be to tear the whole row down and replace with a 4-5 storey condo building to double the density with modern materials and comforts. But logic and American municipal politics do not mix. Historic districts are mostly rent-seeking, NIMBY tools of exclusion.

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

We don't need to boot out single family homes, but we do need to allow things like ADUs and subdividing the larger homes into duplexes or more. Otherwise, the neighborhood will be "destroyed".

Most of, if not all of Curtis Park has a Zoning Conservation Overlay that makes it easier to build ADUs. ADU's can be built into the bulk plane and don't have the restriction of being just a story and half. This was done to encourage the building of ADUs and increasing density in a way that has little to no effect on the historic neighborhood.
It's a tough balance to maintain some historic buildings while welcoming new development. The neighbors are very aware of how many more people used to live in the neighborhood than do today and has been quite welcoming of new infill that is not just more SFHs. There are plenty of once empty lots that now have townhomes and apartments on them, inside the boundaries of the various landmark districts.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RyanD

https://denverinfill.com/blog/2020/0...re-facade.html

Thanks for the great update.

I can recall thinking when McGregor Square was announced what order they would build the the separate pieces and which would come from first? Before I could think too long the whole block was a construction zone and yes, it does seem like this project given its different pieces is going up at warp speed.

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Re: Homelessness tax

Re: Curtis Park

Well said.

Originally Posted by twister244

So, this isn't specific to Denver per-se, but I came across this article highlighting the changes in domestic migration patterns due to changes in the tax law that took effect a couple years ago.

Good point.

[Cirrus]

ADUs are great, and in some parts of town they're all we need, but in a rational world a place like Curtis Park--literally walkable to downtown--should be predominantly walkup apartments. It should be at least as dense as Capitol Hill. Really it should be as dense as SF's Nob Hill or Vancouver's West End.

Like, one of Denver's (and many US cities') key problems is that you go straight from downtown to neighborhoods that are structurally SFH. I'm sympathetic to the desire to preserve historic architecture, but we need to find a way to let these downtown-adjacent neighborhoods do the job that downtown-adjacent neighborhoods are supposed to do.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

If there was any money to be made on an ADU you'd see more of the them. Niche, pet project from the Tesla set.

[spr8364]

I just watched a short video from The Economist regarding the "myth" of home ownership being better than renting and how renting over the long run may not actually be more expensive than owning. Home owning meaning single or multi-family ownership. They also get into ownership being a part of the driving force behind NIMBYism. I'm not too sure I'm fully on board (yet) with the conclusion of the video. After all, having a home that you own and is paid for feels more comfortable if you hit hard times financially. You can ride out the storm a little longer. But, then again, if it lasts too long and you haven't paid it off, you could loose your investment. If you rent, you can pack up and find a job elsewhere. Perhaps, having a lack of condos in Denver may not be an entirely bad thing if seen from this perspective.

Here is the link below:
How an obsession with home ownership can ruin the economy | The Economist

[CastleScott]

Hi all Denver forumers as a lurker who always checks out posts on here and I've noticed that the situation of RTD's plight has been a big topic on here. Well one of my best friends is putting his hat in the ring for one of the appointed positions that may come about, he's a former RTD board member who was first appointed back in 1977 by then Gov Richard Lamm-stayed on until the elected board took office in 1981. He was then Elected from his home Northglenn in 1986-reelected in 1990 and stayed till 1994. His name is Kevin Robert Sampson and he's an avid transit supporter and started many bus routes in the northern metro and he supported the start of the light rail service (the MAC line as what it was called back in the early 90s). My friend lives in SW Denver (Bear Valley) now and he does take the C/D line a lot and rides buses as well. Just something I want to share.

Thanks guys and gals.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Re: Homelessness tax

I am troubled by the fact that central cities in large, often left leaning metropolitan areas bear an outsized burden in regards to the homelessness crisis (i.e. the opiate-mental health-unaffordable housing crisis). I am not against my taxes going to help resolve and/or alleviate these issues, but let's be honest about the fact that a large contingent of our resident urban campers do not hail from the City and County of Denver. The suburbs and rural counties where many folks are coming from are not paying into our funds to combat homelessness, not to mention the other 49 states. It's unrealistic to expect this, but really we should be getting money from the State and the Federal government. Instead, we'll create more incentives for people "experiencing homelessness" to come here and then we'll have the ask taxpayers for more money in a few more years.

Re: Curtis Park

I live in Curtis Park and, yes, there is a lot more than just SFHs. But nearly all of that low scale missing middle housing was there a century or more ago. It's a bit silly that the density has been and will continue to be frozen in time thanks to zoning and the historical status. I'd be in favor of saving maybe a three block stretch of one street (maybe Stout) as a bit of a museum piece for posterity, but let the rest of the neighborhood evolve. The rowhome I live in is falling apart, has terrible insulation and sound proofing. The logical thing would be to tear the whole row down and replace with a 4-5 storey condo building to double the density with modern materials and comforts. But logic and American municipal politics do not mix. Historic districts are mostly rent-seeking, NIMBY tools of exclusion.

Damn fine points - both of them. That first point is something I haven't even really considered before, but you're totally right.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Quick question regarding the Bell Tower:

Does the fact that the Bell Tower submitted a site development plan mean that the Lower Downtown Design Review Board approved their design?