DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Denver7’s brutalist building on Speer won’t become a city landmark

I know that Texans tend to have an overinflated sense of self(whether neanderthal conservative or snowflake liberal) that makes their arrogance insufferable, but looks like you were way off on what the majority believes. It certainly isn't your viewpoint.

Speaking of overinflated senses, do you have like my whole biography on a sticky note whenever you feel the need for a sneering response to something several weeks ago? I've only referenced being from Dallas because I don't want this city to become Dallas, which appears to by the YIMBY objective. I guess that makes me less than human in your eyes or whatever, so be it.

None of you must have heard what CM Hinds had to say when he was urging his colleagues to vote no, which was imploring the developers to do something other than a big "luxury" building. Newsflash... that's what we're getting, and nothing else.

[seventwentyone]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Was Candi absent or did she not cast a vote? The Denver Post made it seem like she was there but didn’t vote.

I did not watch. I do not have that much patience for stupid. Denver Fugly is a hoot today, though.

My favorite comment was (in C3PO voice) DIE YIMBY SCUM. Yeesh.

She was present on other votes it appears.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Speaking of Preservation I Love This Preservation


Courtesy Esteban L. Hernandez/Denverite

La Alma Lincoln Park moves closer to becoming the city’s second-ever historic cultural district
Apr. 21, 2021 Esteban L. Hernandez/Denverite

Wait until out-of-state REITs set their sights on Lincoln Park... once easy infill surface lots on Santa Fe finally disappear. This group and all the YIMBY people on social media will have it out for the Chicanos... just wait for it. Gunna get ugly.

I'm on the side of the Chicano descendants trying to preserve their history. I guess that makes me a snowflake, re: comment above.

[The Dirt]

Ah yes, we want to turn Dallas into a Chicano-less white luxury apartment utopia modeled on Dallas. Thanks for standing up to us! You're such a good guy, man of the people, gopokes.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Ah yes, we want to turn Dallas into a Chicano-less white luxury apartment utopia modeled on Dallas. Thanks for standing up to us! You're such a good guy, man of the people, gopokes.

YIMBY will have them surrounded, actually. Think of how many white luxury apartments will fit on Burnham Yard. I am just assuming Debbie "nobody's going to live by train tracks" Ortega will not be interested in stopping the inevitable YIMBY takeover there too.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Speaking of overinflated senses, do you have like my whole biography on a sticky note whenever you feel the need for a sneering response to something several weeks ago? I've only referenced being from Dallas because I don't want this city to become Dallas, which appears to by the YIMBY objective. I guess that makes me less than human in your eyes or whatever, so be it.

None of you must have heard what CM Hinds had to say when he was urging his colleagues to vote no, which was imploring the developers to do something other than a big "luxury" building. Newsflash... that's what we're getting, and nothing else.

There was once a time when I really appreciated this forum for both the breadth of knowledge that people on here have and because of the productive and relatively respectful discussion that occurred. I have also noticed the devolution of the rhetoric on here to where it begins to look more like republicans and democrats arguing on Facebook. I personally feel that ad hominem attacks are lazy, unproductive, and drag the entire discussion down.

That said, I would also point out that responding to ad hominem with more ad hominem does nothing to elevate the discussion. Nobody on here ever actually said that they would like to fill Denver with Dallas Doughnuts. That is simply an accusation that you have repeated at least 4-5 times and is your own opinion. This is is also a form of personal attack because it attacks a perceived motivation (i.e. turning Denver into Dallas) that has never actually been asserted.

I'd add that being afraid of what might get built, as opposed to saving what is built on its own merits, is not what historic preservation is for. The answer to the "Dallas Doughnut" problem is better modern architecture - not the endless embalming of mediocre old buildings.

Unfortunately, this is the reason I rarely engage in ongoing discussion on here. Sometimes I try to leave a thoughtful comment - take it or leave it. The main reason I still log on is because this forum continues to attract people with a deep well of knowledge about planning and what is going on in Denver. But it bums me out to see smart, passionate people getting caught up in personal fights with people they have never actually met.

[TakeFive]

Source

This sounds like a very good idea.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

The cherry on top is that they talked about making the rules more strict for hostile designations because the process is so laughable that people are going to lose faith and there'll be a backlash against preservation. I'd say that the backlash is already here. Most of the people that wanted to save the building didn't even defend the architecture, they just talked about how they don't want new housing because it's going to be ugly.

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

Originally Posted by gopokes21

I've only referenced being from Dallas because I don't want this city to become Dallas, which appears to by the YIMBY objective.

I had noticed that some misunderstood your references to Dallas, your intended context. Maybe it wasn't always articulated the best but I got the gist of it.

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

Moving right along


Source

Originally Posted by mr1138

Unfortunately, this is the reason I rarely engage in ongoing discussion on here. Sometimes I try to leave a thoughtful comment - take it or leave it. The main reason I still log on is because this forum continues to attract people with a deep well of knowledge about planning and what is going on in Denver. But it bums me out to see smart, passionate people getting caught up in personal fights with people they have never actually met.

Appreciate your thoughtful comment but the history of this forum is a lot like the "long and winding road" with lots of ups and downs and petty fun in the sun. Different strokes applies and every person's view is unique. I honestly can enjoy the simplistic as much as the complex.

[TakeFive]

Politicos are quick to criticize which hides their ineptness in providing solutions

Originally Posted by gopokes21

None of you must have heard what CM Hinds had to say when he was urging his colleagues to vote no, which was imploring the developers to do something other than a big "luxury" building. Newsflash... that's what we're getting, and nothing else.

Good assumption 'CM' was trying to reflect the general sentiment. But did the DCC offer any incentives to build something different?

If PMG continues their X Social trend, does that not qualify as being different from "luxury?" Is bunt-fugly affordable better?

Speaking of PMG
According to DBJ, PMG has retained Shears Adkins Rockmore for this project so perhaps they'll do something substantially different from another X Social project. Could we even be impressed?

------------------
I was pleased they finalized rezoning for Loretto Heights

Originally Posted by seventwentyone

Loretto Height rezoned last night though: https://denver.legistar.com/Legislat...tions=&Search=

Speaking of historic preservation


The historic Pancratia Hall is being renovated and will soon become full of affordable housing units on the Loretto Heights campus.
Harvey Park South, Feb. 10, 2021 photo credit Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite


Loretto Heights rezoning request approved, moving grand reimagining for the campus forward
May 10, 2021 By Esteban L. Hernandez

The request approved Monday includes two custom zoning codes developers sought that took into consideration the campus topography and historic nature. In order to get the right zoning, developers worked with city staff to create these custom codes, which include unique allowances like building homes that face green spaces rather than streets or roads.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

If PMG continues their X Social trend, does that not qualify as being different from "luxury?" Is bunt-fugly affordable better?

Bunt-fugly, I like this. When I win mega-millions, I am going to cover this City in condos so goddamn ugly, yet so goddamn affordable (no granite countertops here - I am singlehandedly going to revive the Formica brand), that people all over facebook are going to experience their brains tearing themselves apart. Think the shit you drive by leaving the Rio de Janeiro airport. Only more EIFS.

[bunt_q]

I am also going to do one of these projects as a fully open and transparent community process. You can have all of the money you want from me - I want a 5% return on equity - and then I will hire a consultant to lead an affordable housing project start to finish. We'll solicit trades and subontractor bids openly. We will take cameras through the City permitting process. Bank pricing - fully open and online. Site selection and land purchase negotiations - all in an open meeting. We are going to facebook live our way through a development project so that people can experience once and for all what can and cannot be done. Think you can do better, Denver Fugly online starchitects? Join the zoom meeting - tell me what you want, and we will get some guys to price that out. If you can make it pencil, while not giving up the percent of units at 50% - 80% of AMI, great. No secrets here. Crowdsourcing of development basically. Until it all collapses under economic realities. But it'll be fun.

[seventwentyone]

I miss Eeyore. Can we unban him?

[The Dirt]

I love that people still haven't caught on that luxury is anything other than a marketing gimmick. Granite counter tops are like $5 more on your rent bill. You want market rate affordability on land that costs $5M while the structure costs $2M (despite 9%-18% required returns to investors, labor costs, and astronomical material costs) then let's go ahead and have a French Revolution-style uprising that even the likes of Candi would blush at. Hopefully, enough people will die or flee the country so that we'll have enough rubble for the remaining people to live in. I'm just hoping enough of Country Club (sorry bunt) and Congress Park burns down in the process so that it can be replaced with brutalist style concrete bunkers in the style of Texas doughnuts.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by seventwentyone

I miss Eeyore. Can we unban him?

Can we ban you for saying that?

I mean, hasn't it been about 10 years since his banning? I think he predicted that Pueblo would be a metro of about 2M people now.

[seventwentyone]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Can we ban you for saying that?

I mean, hasn't it been about 10 years since his banning? I think he predicted that Pueblo would be a metro of about 2M people now.

Cirrus was supposed to ban me years ago. I think I get super immunity now.

Also, I like how bunt-tastic your rhetoric has become man.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

Speaking of overinflated senses, do you have like my whole biography on a sticky note whenever you feel the need for a sneering response to something several weeks ago? I've only referenced being from Dallas because I don't want this city to become Dallas, which appears to by the YIMBY objective. I guess that makes me less than human in your eyes or whatever, so be it.

None of you must have heard what CM Hinds had to say when he was urging his colleagues to vote no, which was imploring the developers to do something other than a big "luxury" building. Newsflash... that's what we're getting, and nothing else.

Nah. It was because your statement struck me as being particularly out of touch and I felt the need to throw it back in your face. Am I being snarky and petty? Absolutely. But given that you tend to soapbox that you are on the right side of history while everyone else is an unsophisticated plebe who cannot grasp how real estate development works in a "real" city it was satisfying.

Of course we're getting a big "luxury" building. It's a big site that has zoning that allows for it and we have a bit of a housing supply shortage that has manifested itself as a housing crisis. What else would we be getting given current local conditions? The question should be if we will be getting a Bespoke Uptown (minus the far easier adaptive reuse on that project) or an Alexa Uptown? I'm not sure which way we're going at this point, but PMG seems to be making the right noises that points towards the former and the Denver market has matured enough that a Dallas Doughnut is no longer a viable building option in the city center.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I love that people still haven't caught on that luxury is anything other than a marketing gimmick. Granite counter tops are like $5 more on your rent bill. You want market rate affordability on land that costs $5M while the structure costs $2M (despite 9%-18% required returns to investors, labor costs, and astronomical material costs) then let's go ahead and have a French Revolution-style uprising that even the likes of Candi would blush at. Hopefully, enough people will die or flee the country so that we'll have enough rubble for the remaining people to live in. I'm just hoping enough of Country Club and Congress Park burns down in the process so that it can be replaced with brutalist style concrete bunkers in the style of Texas doughnuts.

If that's the path towards housing affordability that we're going down, Park Hill Golf Course would make an excellent staging ground for the artillery batteries that would be needed to level Congress Park during the ensuing conflict.


Bunt can administer the Provincial Reconstruction Authority to handle the wholesale rehousing of the remaining Denverites.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Can we ban you for saying that?

I mean, hasn't it been about 10 years since his banning? I think he predicted that Pueblo would be a metro of about 2M people now.

If not for his banning, Pueblo would have 2M people by now.

Do you know how I know this is true? Because nobody can disprove the counterfactual.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by seventwentyone

Also, I like how bunt-tastic your rhetoric has become man.

I'm too unoffending in real life, so I need an outlet.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

If not for his banning, Pueblo would have 2M people by now.

Do you know how I know this is true? Because nobody can disprove the counterfactual.

I blame Cirrus and his lack of faith in Pueblo, where the dream of the 70s is still alive.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Bunt can administer the Provincial Reconstruction Authority to handle the wholesale rehousing of the remaining Denverites.

I mean, I have considered of late whether I need to up-armor my F-150 to navigate Park Avenue. The rubble of Congress Park seems like a piece of cake compared to parts of actual Denver these days.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by seventwentyone

I miss Eeyore. Can we unban him?

Crazy that he recently also crossed my mind except in the moment I couldn't recall his handle.

Speaking of creating an Insane Clustermess, the Dem Legislature is preparing to do just that

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I am also going to do one of these projects as a fully open and transparent community process. You can have all of the money you want from me - I want a 5% return on equity - and then I will hire a consultant to lead an affordable housing project start to finish. We'll solicit trades and subontractor bids openly. We will take cameras through the City permitting process. Bank pricing - fully open and online. Site selection and land purchase negotiations - all in an open meeting. We are going to facebook live our way through a development project so that people can experience once and for all what can and cannot be done. Think you can do better, Denver Fugly online starchitects? Join the zoom meeting - tell me what you want, and we will get some guys to price that out. If you can make it pencil, while not giving up the percent of units at 50% - 80% of AMI, great. No secrets here. Crowdsourcing of development basically. Until it all collapses under economic realities. But it'll be fun.

Transportation bill moves forward, even as questions arise about proposed environmental studies
May 11, 2021 By Ed Sealover – Senior Reporter, Denver Business Journal

I can deal with the hodgepodge of fees to raise revenue even if not ideal. But this is just insane...

... a lot of the debate Tuesday revolved around Section 28 of the bill. That provision would require CDOT and metropolitan planning organizations to engage in an enhanced level of planning, analysis, community engagement and monitoring before launching projects to add to roadway capacity, doing even more than federal rules now require.

....both argued that the new planning would be duplicative of federal environmental studies that already take five to seven years on average. Chris Colclasure, a former deputy director of Colorado’s air pollution control division.... said that allowing the Air Quality Control Commission to regulate road projects in this way would expand its powers into an area where it now has no responsibility.

I Laugh

Making a wild-ass guess that CDOT spends 50% more per mile than ADOT already. The irony is that (not counting Central 70) the freeways down here are much nicer and safer. Most of the difference goes to efficiency or lack thereof. The time value of money likely accounts for 25% by itself which includes a dedicated revenue stream.

Decide whatever... (the majority wants) but giving a 'Special Interest' effective veto power to run out the clock and run up the price is nuts. And then they complain about the costs.

Just to balance out the politics

Andrew Kenney at CPR (who I've always liked) has a nice piece on how the Dems play Houdini with semantics to create what appears to be a very sound approach to taxation.