DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Nah. Us SFH are the preferred residents of the city. Our way of life is blessed by the City Council and the RNO's who help us in the all important fight to preserve neighborhood character.

At one time I lived in a nice Townhome/Condo community - in Denver - that I thoroughly enjoyed. It was right on the High Line Canal Trail that I used all the time, often to ride to Cherry Creek Reservoir. Nice landscaping too!

Starting ~$300,000, See HERE and HERE.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It must be fun to conflate issues...


Again; Denver is density friendly and there is no shortage of land to develop.

I recently highlighted:

• Gates/Broadway Station:
• Elyria-Swansea 700-home development
• Loretto Heights Redevelopment
• Sun Valley Ecodistrict & Stadium District
• Old CDOT headquarters redevelopment

rds70 recently reminded us of the Santa Fe Yards
Also yesterday the 41st & Fox Station ie Sunnyside
And still tons of fun to be had in RiNo.

Different Strokes

Downtown PHX has had a LGBTQ-driven renaissance especially in the surrounding historical neighborhoods. Their downtown also has a Big University Medical & Science and Law School component. Yes it's quite different.

But the best urbanism action is in Tempe; they just started receiving their new streetcars where the streetcar line will intersect with existing light rail in two places.

For the twenty-something crowd you can't beat Old Town Scottsdale. For the High Finance and Upscale crowd you want North Scottsdale Rd.

And if you seek some of the nicest homes anywhere, you want the high desert.

Different strokes.

Sorry, but agree to disagree. Denver doesn't have plenty of land to develop on IN THE CITY..... I already laid out swaths of the city on my side of town where you can't develop on SFH lots because of zoning. Your list of places doesn't encompass large swaths of land. My neighborhood (Jefferson Park) was upzoned 10 years ago, and it's quickly running out of lots to develop townhomes, etc. Again, we need to do what Minneapolis did and upzone the entire city..... Otherwise prices will continue to be unaffordable for many.

Also, I'm not crapping on Phoenix because of political leanings, etc, but it really does feel like one big sprawled out suburb with a small CBD. I've been there a couple times and that's the vibe I got. Phoenix isn't close to Denver in terms of city core.... Just as Denver isn't close to Chicago in terms of urban cores.

[Darius C]

Santa Fe Yards at Broadway Station

[TakeFive]

Time to post what I had forgotten about

Originally Posted by twister244

Sorry, but agree to disagree. Denver doesn't have plenty of land to develop on IN THE CITY.....

Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver HQ Building Hits the Market
February 10, 2021 - Mile High CRE

Habitat for Humanity of Metro Denver‘s headquarters building located at 3245 Eliot Street in Denver’s Highlands neighborhood, is on the market for $6.8 million. The 0.95-acre site, at the corner of West 33rd Avenue and Eliot Street in Denver’s Highlands neighborhood, is zoned for multiple commercial uses, up to three stories, including multifamily, hospitality and office.

Click HERE to see this property's potential for redevelopment. You can see the newer 'slot' homes across the alley(?).

Fun Story

Originally Posted by twister244

Also, I'm not crapping on Phoenix because of political leanings, etc, but it really does feel like one big sprawled out suburb with a small CBD. I've been there a couple times and that's the vibe I got.

I pick up this Asian gal from Sky Harbor. She wants a ride to the The Metcalf House which is a "2020 Travelers Choice" Hostel.

Turns out she grew up in Northern Europe; Estonia IIRC. She comes across the pond and lives in Columbia OH for a few years. She fly's into Sky Harbor with only a backpack undecided whether she will stay or venture somewhere else. Very articulate with no discernible accent, she was an impressive young lady.

I'm not invested in Phx downtown; much prefer mid-town and Uptown is even better. When I Uber, I avoid the downtown/md-town mess. I'll skip Tempe and the University brats as well as Old Town Scottsdale. I don't mind the east Camelback Corridor/Arcadia area. I prefer the resort-hotel areas along with the airport. Except on Sunday mornings when I'll pick out a lower socioeconomic area to help people get back and forth to the grocery store. I may not make much but a few hours of service is something I enjoy.

Originally Posted by Darius C

Santa Fe Yards at Broadway Station

Thanks for the Link.

[TakeFive]

We're holding a Grand Opening Rally





The Rally Hotel
1600 20th Street Denver, CO 80202






Images courtesy Rally Hotel via Hotels.com

....
Images courtesy of Rally Hotel via Travel Pulse

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...k-monfort.html

When Colorado Rockies owner Dick Monfort envisioned The Rally Hotel, he wanted it to be two things — a community gathering place and location that, quite simply, was “fun.”

That vision plays out beginning today, as the 182-room hotel in the heart of the McGregor Square development across 20th Street from Coors Field opens informally, six days before it begins welcoming to the general public. And Monfort, who became its first guest on Wednesday night and took a full tour of the facility Thursday afternoon, believes it’s met his early expectations.

While construction continues on areas such as the Rally Bar, the hotel is meeting its owners’ goal of being open in time for the April 1 opening day across the street.

Source

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by twister244

Again, if you own a SFH in Denver, good for you, enjoy it. Just don't get all pissy when some of us want the option to move into a denser option down the street. If you don't like that, don't live in the city, go to Aurora or Broomfield.

This is why you buy in a historic district of large-ish old nice single family homes on small-ish lots. Because Aurora and Broomfield don't have anything historic, so we have a credible argument that Denver needs to protect this unique thing that people can't get in the suburbs. Lots of places can accommodate density; none can replace this building stock. We'll literally be the last neighborhood in the entire city to get upzoned.

Or so the argument goes. Lol.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Do we know what components of Santa Fe Yards are actually under construction? I mean, they were planning 1,000,000 square feet of office and I'm not aware that they have found an anchor tenant for that

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is why you buy in a historic district of large-ish old nice single family homes on small-ish lots. Because Aurora and Broomfield don't have anything historic, so we have a credible argument that Denver needs to protect this unique thing that people can't get in the suburbs. Lots of places can accommodate density; none can replace this building stock. We'll literally be the last neighborhood in the entire city to get upzoned.

Or so the argument goes. Lol.

There are empty lots throughout historic neighborhoods. Build whatever on those lots. Contributing historic assets should be declared off-limits for demolition because, as bunt points out, once it's gone it's gone forever.

Secondly, if density is really the goal, how about a livable happy medium when it comes to density. Cap Hill is a better neighborhood than Golden Triangle. Historic communities tend to exemplify that ideal "missing middle" density level.

The National Trust has the data to prove that older, smaller = better.
https://savingplaces.org/stories/pre...b#.YFkfmUhKjnU

We actually don't need every parcel in this city to be covered with generic, EIFS-covered, double-loaded apartment corridors wrapped around parking. That said, anyone should be welcome to build that on an available site if they conform to zoning and design standards.

YIMBY types are just market-obsessed libertarian urbanists struggling with all of those contradictions. If you want a value proposition to take to the extreme, how about one about people or neighborhoods?

[twister244]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

YIMBY types are just market-obsessed libertarian urbanists struggling with all of those contradictions. If you want a value proposition to take to the extreme, how about one about people or neighborhoods?

Wrong.

Most of us want a city that everyone can be a part of, regardless of income. it's one thing when lower class people can't afford a house in Denver. It's another level when the AVERAGE house price is now around $630k. That's not even affordable for the middle class in many cases.

I'm all for preserving historic buildings, where it's warranted, but not every ugly ass bungalow in Denver needs to be saved. Also, these sorts of arguments have been extended to protest any development, even if it doesn't mean the loss of a building that should be saved.

The solution is to upzone the city to allow more housing. The more this metro area tries to cater to NIMBYs who want housing growth caps, or their mountain views preserved, etc, the longer this affordability crisis will drag out until people start giving up on Denver and voting with their feet.

But hey, if you want to turn Denver into Boulder the sequel, be my guest. As I said before, I think Denver is nice, but it's not $630k nice.

[Ich]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

There are empty lots throughout historic neighborhoods. Build whatever on those lots. Contributing historic assets should be declared off-limits for demolition because, as bunt points out, once it's gone it's gone forever.

Secondly, if density is really the goal, how about a livable happy medium when it comes to density. Cap Hill is a better neighborhood than Golden Triangle. Historic communities tend to exemplify that ideal "missing middle" density level.

The National Trust has the data to prove that older, smaller = better.
https://savingplaces.org/stories/pre...b#.YFkfmUhKjnU

We actually don't need every parcel in this city to be covered with generic, EIFS-covered, double-loaded apartment corridors wrapped around parking. That said, anyone should be welcome to build that on an available site if they conform to zoning and design standards.

YIMBY types are just market-obsessed libertarian urbanists struggling with all of those contradictions. If you want a value proposition to take to the extreme, how about one about people or neighborhoods?

Wait... Arent you the one who is wanting subways and better public transportation? But then want to call all SFHs located literally next to a downtown core as historic? Lol You wanna know why those lots aren’t being developed? Because they are the only lots that can be developed but still have stupid zoning restrictions that make developing almost impossible to make financial sense. Restricting the supply of land that can be developed will drive up prices. If all land was fair game then land prices wouldn’t be as high they are now. I own a home in Baker and I would welcome adding density if it meant more people could live here. Prefer to live in a neighborhood with people from all socioeconomic backgrounds than one with people who think their poor feelings about the character of the neighborhood matter more than allowing other to also have the opportunity to enjoy it as well. You care about history, go reconstruct a house in a subdivision that’s covenant controlled..... I would love to meet the idiot who is trying to save the 7 news building

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

There are empty lots throughout historic neighborhoods. Build whatever on those lots. Contributing historic assets should be declared off-limits for demolition because, as bunt points out, once it's gone it's gone forever.

Secondly, if density is really the goal, how about a livable happy medium when it comes to density. Cap Hill is a better neighborhood than Golden Triangle. Historic communities tend to exemplify that ideal "missing middle" density level.

The National Trust has the data to prove that older, smaller = better.
https://savingplaces.org/stories/pre...b#.YFkfmUhKjnU

We actually don't need every parcel in this city to be covered with generic, EIFS-covered, double-loaded apartment corridors wrapped around parking. That said, anyone should be welcome to build that on an available site if they conform to zoning and design standards.

YIMBY types are just market-obsessed libertarian urbanists struggling with all of those contradictions. If you want a value proposition to take to the extreme, how about one about people or neighborhoods?

Just spotted the local NIMBY.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

YIMBY types are just market-obsessed libertarian urbanists struggling with all of those contradictions. If you want a value proposition to take to the extreme, how about one about people or neighborhoods?

Well if that's the case...

*Blows off the copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Road to Serfdom on the book-shelf.*

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Ich

You care about history, go reconstruct a house in a subdivision that’s covenant controlled.....

Are there any covenant controlled communities in Colorado with historic (call it pre-war) building stock? I assume not, but I would be very curious.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

YIMBY types are just market-obsessed libertarian urbanists struggling with all of those contradictions. If you want a value proposition to take to the extreme, how about one about people or neighborhoods?

Nope, hard-left, pro-union socialist here. I believe that the quest to preserve "historic" neighborhoods and the ever-so-precious mountain views here in Denver is nothing more than an insidious way for the rich to preserve an unequal system that benefits only landowners and increases property values beyond the reach of the majority of the populace. The language of NIMBYism, historical preservation, and "neighborhood rights" has adopted slogans from environmentalists and the civil rights movement to convince people to fight for the landlords and guarantee unaffordable living.

You really care about people? Build dense housing and house EVERYBODY in affordable neighborhoods close to the city. You care about the environment? Stop building sprawling mcmansions on every available spot of open prairie. YIMBYism is most definitely not just a position for weird Gadsen-flag-waving misanthropes.

And yes, you can preserve actual historical homes along the way, but if you can't name anyone who lived there and give an example of why they should be remembered and that what they did at the address, or name a single noteworthy event, or cite unique architecture that doesn't have many parallels, THEN IT ISN'T HISTORIC. Bulldoze it. Build dense housing. Block the views. Tear down your 30's mass-produced brick bungalow and build apartments for people making less than $100k. Put 10 townhomes on the space of 1 house. Put 50 apartments in the space of 10 townhomes. Put 500 apartments on top of that. Invest in mass transit for the city center instead of a system that encourages people to move further out.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

We actually don't need every parcel in this city to be covered with generic, EIFS-covered, double-loaded apartment corridors wrapped around parking. That said, anyone should be welcome to build that on an available site if they conform to zoning and design standards.

We actually don't need every parcel to be a mass produced Sears catalog 1920s bungalow that was purchased for $30K in 1992 and is now selling for >$1M. We don't need homes designed for nuclear heteronormal families that now only 1-percenters retired armchair architects can afford. We don't need cookie-cutter Denver squares covered in cheap, crumbling brick, faulty wiring, lead pipes, and bad insulation that leaks 90% of it's heat. We don't need NIMBYs like you trying to preserve "neighborhood character" which was built on explicitly racist goals, when the character is only preserved for the rich and white.

SFHs neighborhoods are literally:
- bad for the environment
- bad for transportation
- bad for infrastructure funding
- bad for affordability

Every YIMBY has heard your fake historic preservation argument a million times and know that the subtext is "keep my neighborhood as white as possible to let me have 40% annual equity gains on my crumbling home".

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

We actually don't need every parcel to be a mass produced Sears catalog 1920s bungalow that was purchased for $30K in 1992 and is now selling for >$1M. We don't need homes designed for nuclear heteronormal families that now only 1-percenters retired armchair architects can afford. We don't need cookie-cutter Denver squares covered in cheap, crumbling brick, faulty wiring, lead pipes, and bad insulation that leaks 90% of it's heat. We don't need NIMBYs like you trying to preserve "neighborhood character" which was built on explicitly racist goals, when the character is only preserved for the rich and white.

SFHs neighborhoods are literally:
- bad for the environment
- bad for transportation
- bad for infrastructure funding
- bad for affordability

Every YIMBY has heard your fake historic preservation argument a million times and know that the subtext is "keep my neighborhood as white as possible to let me have 40% annual equity gains on my crumbling home".

This is the same racist nonsense that’s endlessly repeated here that never takes into account that non rich whities might want to save their neighborhoods for different reasons. Historic preservation and all. Get over your sanctimonious white self and stop telling minorities how to live and feel.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

This is the same racist nonsense that’s endlessly repeated here that never takes into account that non rich whities might want to save their neighborhoods for different reasons. Historic preservation and all. Get over your sanctimonious white self and stop telling minorities how to live and feel.

Says the most MAGA member on here.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

We actually don't need every parcel to be a mass produced Sears catalog 1920s bungalow that was purchased for $30K in 1992 and is now selling for >$1M. We don't need homes designed for nuclear heteronormal families that now only 1-percenters retired armchair architects can afford. We don't need cookie-cutter Denver squares covered in cheap, crumbling brick, faulty wiring, lead pipes, and bad insulation that leaks 90% of it's heat. We don't need NIMBYs like you trying to preserve "neighborhood character" which was built on explicitly racist goals, when the character is only preserved for the rich and white.

SFHs neighborhoods are literally:
- bad for the environment
- bad for transportation
- bad for infrastructure funding
- bad for affordability

Every YIMBY has heard your fake historic preservation argument a million times and know that the subtext is "keep my neighborhood as white as possible to let me have 40% annual equity gains on my crumbling home".

This is a tad harsh. You know, there are heteronormal 1-percenter white families that live in cookie-cutter Denver squares covered in crumbling brick, lead pipes, and bad insulation (working on that) that nevertheless generally agree with you, proudly call themselves YIMBYs, but who still see gray area in some places and might argue that homes built in 1900 Denver weren't necessarily built with any nefarious intent, are actually pretty and irreplaceable, and at least in some specific places, are worth preserving, notwithstanding some of the consequences for affordability in specific areas that might result in. And who take offense at the implication that liking an old brick house, in a city that does not have a lot of them, inherently makes one racist.

And since you are a CHUN Board Member, I would point out to you the supreme hypocrisy of that organization proactively seeking a downzoning of that awful park-adjacent single-family house it operates out of, which used to sit on one of the last really great parcels actually zoned for a legitimately tall building anywhere in the city. I am not aware that you grandstanded and called out your fellow Board members as the racist MAGA pricks they are when that occurred. Did you? I hope the answer is yes.

[gopokes21]

This "SFH is racist" sanctimony is a bad trend that doesn't really help anyone.

Similarly, nobody's life is made better by EIFS-covered, double-loaded corridor-wrapped parking garages.

You know what does help all kinds of different people, particularly the goal of economic diversity? Historic preservation of missing middle housing.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is a tad harsh. You know, there are heteronormal 1-percenter white families that live in cookie-cutter Denver squares covered in crumbling brick, lead pipes, and bad insulation (working on that) that nevertheless generally agree with you, proudly call themselves YIMBYs, but who still see gray area in some places and might argue that homes built in 1900 Denver weren't necessarily built with any nefarious intent, are actually pretty and irreplaceable, and at least in some specific places, are worth preserving, notwithstanding some of the consequences for affordability in specific areas that might result in. And who take offense at the implication that liking an old brick house, in a city that does not have a lot of them, inherently makes one racist.

Sure, and for the record I love old brick bungalows and Denver squares, Victorians and Italianates. Would I like to see some of them preserved, sure! Do I want swaths of central Denver dipped in amber until only the uber rich can live here, fuck no. I'm pushing back against the "preserve everything" and "just build in the suburbs" arguments that I hear from some of the folks here and elsewhere in Denver. SFHs aren't inherently evil and having them sprinkled all over Denver isn't going to hurt anyone. Having them be the law and nothing but the law in 85% of Denver is bad for all of those things that I listed earlier. You don't have to be a racist to benefit from racist policies and to actively support them. I'm calling SFH zoning racist because there are reams of information backing this up.

And since you are a CHUN Board Member, I would point out to you the supreme hypocrisy of that organization proactively seeking a downzoning of that awful park-adjacent single-family house it operates out of, which used to sit on one of the last really great parcels actually zoned for a legitimately tall building anywhere in the city. I am not aware that you grandstanded and called out your fellow Board members as the racist MAGA pricks they are when that occurred. Did you? I hope the answer is yes.

This is a red herring. The building was already historically protected, so there was no way to build anything resembling the 20+ story zoning that the lot allowed. All that the Tiers rezoning did was allow for commercial uses... something that was vehemently opposed by every NIMBY within a quarter mile radius. The PUD "downzoning" was just a NIMBY concession to make the rezoning happen and keep the property solvent. I support historic preservation for contributing structures with some, you know, actual history. I don't support historic preservation for the purpose of keeping denser, missing-middle housing as far away as possible.