DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by 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?

It can be for other things as it moves through design review. the LDDRC still denied its last submittal.

[tommyboy733]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

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.

Those numbers are disturbing, if correct.

According to the 2019 Point in Time Report for Denver there were 3,943 "total counted", which was 69% of the 5,714 metro-wide. I have no idea what the accuracy "total counted" is, or if they have estimates or analysis to estimate those that are inevitable missed.

https://www.mdhi.org/pit_reports

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1566335912

Are $140 million costs just within Denver are for the entire metro area? If divided by just the Denver population $140 M / 3,943 = $35,505.

The official federal poverty level is $12,760. I'm not saying that's sufficient, just proving context that this is several times the governments official poverty rate.

I don't know what the answer is but not more money IMO.

There are some many crazies. Sometimes I wonder about institutionalization, however I see two big problems.

1. How can the government/society decide who needs to be effectively locked up against their will. How could this not infringe on rights? How crazy is crazy enough to loose one's rights, esp if there are no violent crimes? No society is truly free but where's the line?

2. Many asylums in the past often were hell. Abuse, trauma, etc. Kinda relates to the point above, and I think contributed to de-institutionalization. There were many examples of well run institutions, but also many horror stories. Look how asylums have become standard in the horror genre. Some victims would have been better off on the streets.

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by 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.

More and more are being built year over year. And there is certainly money to be made. Our neighbors do well with AirBnB. It may not increase the resale price of your home right away since accurate appraisals are a challenge given the lack of comparable properties. But over time this will improve. Plus, it's not always about turning a profit. I could see one being a viable solution for a place for my mom to live when my dad passes or for my brother to live if he ever leaves his wife.

[Denver Dweller]

https://denverhighriseliving.org/con...qb4lexyjNRpPVk

[Jefficator]

Originally Posted by tommyboy733

If divided by just the Denver population $140 M / 3,943 = $35,505. .

Utah ran the same calculation and determined that giving apartments to each homeless person was a cheaper solution than continuing the current broken, piecemeal approaches to homelessness.

[iNfill]

Originally Posted by Jefficator

Utah ran the same calculation and determined that giving apartments to each homeless person was a cheaper solution than continuing the current broken, piecemeal approaches to homelessness.

Unless you build them downtown for in a highly saught after area, how many would actually go? Like if you did it out in the plains. Did UT stop all other services for the homeless?

If these numbers are correct it seems like a decent option. Even just tiny homes - but the land would have to be cheap and would it work in Denver...

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

https://denverhighriseliving.org/con...qb4lexyjNRpPVk

Yikes. There goes the mini condo construction boom. I hope there's enough pro-housing Dems to block this.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Jefficator

Utah ran the same calculation and determined that giving apartments to each homeless person was a cheaper solution than continuing the current broken, piecemeal approaches to homelessness.

Since I don't see a lot of homeless living high on the hog, I suspect what it really says is that there's a large "homeless services" bureaucracy that ends up burning most of the funds allocated to help the homeless and a relatively small amount of the money actually ends up directly benefiting homeless.

Would love to know how to better spend the relatively large sum we are already spending, at least on a per capita homeless basis.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by iNfill

Unless you build them downtown for in a highly saught after area, how many would actually go? Like if you did it out in the plains. Did UT stop all other services for the homeless?

If these numbers are correct it seems like a decent option. Even just tiny homes - but the land would have to be cheap and would it work in Denver...

Utah declared victory and rested on it's laurels and the homeless population has since spiked as they stopped building housing. However, it didn't just cease support services for the homeless, as such services are a vital part of the Housing First strategy. You tie an individual to a home and you can then loop them into services so that there's a decent chance that the negative cycle the person is stuck in is broken. But, shelters just don't go away, SLC is closed it's single large shelter and opened up three small shelters to still provide emergency shelter services.

What you need with housing first is a dedicated funding stream that you borrow on initially to ramp up your housing, coupled with a reoccurring source of funds for operations, and that also will expand as the program grows. I personally balk at $55M in tax increase to do so, but I can see a smaller amount making sense.

Hell, kill the dumb food desert tax and use that tax revenue for homeless services instead.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Since I don't see a lot of homeless living high on the hog, I suspect what it really says is that there's a large "homeless services" bureaucracy that ends up burning most of the funds allocated to help the homeless and a relatively small amount of the money actually ends up directly benefiting homeless.

Would love to know how to better spend the relatively large sum we are already spending, at least on a per capita homeless basis.

It looks like Salt Lake City spends somewhere around $18M-20M annually on homelessness including police, medical care, services, housing, etc. I wonder how Denver compares on that metric? My gut says we're way short on that.

SLC and Utah as whole spent ~$62M to redo the shelter system in SLC with the result being fewer shelter beds, but greater resources at the new shelters such as support services, treatment, 24-hour facilities, etc. Realistically, Denver has a long way to go to see that kind of investment. However, it was also the state government that contributed significant amounts towards this program whereas the state in Colorado hasn't done all that much.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

More and more are being built year over year. And there is certainly money to be made. Our neighbors do well with AirBnB. It may not increase the resale price of your home right away since accurate appraisals are a challenge given the lack of comparable properties. But over time this will improve. Plus, it's not always about turning a profit. I could see one being a viable solution for a place for my mom to live when my dad passes or for my brother to live if he ever leaves his wife.

I'd be curious to see figures of permitted and built ADUs in town. Last time I checked its a very paltry figure. Real Estate development is only about turning a profit. I personally think they are great, I think every neighborhood should allow ADUs by right. However, I don't see them moving the needle much for desperately needed supply of missing middle homes. Rowhomes, Duplex, Chicago Flat style buildings is what we need. The city has far too little zoning that allows those forms.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by Jefficator

Utah ran the same calculation and determined that giving apartments to each homeless person was a cheaper solution than continuing the current broken, piecemeal approaches to homelessness.

But then how would you request an additional $55M to help the homeless?

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Your argument would have a little more validity if there wasn’t already space for probably a million people or more even closer to the city center. Why are you picking on curtis park (which is already filling in)https://businessden.com/2020/01/20/p...shot-ava-rino/ ) while vast undeveloped lots rot in the real city core? A square is closer, vacant, and could have space for a million people.

You don’t have to densify just because it’s cool to say.


And please stop perpetuating the same lies about curtis park and other neighborhoods being sfh. These streetcar neighborhoods are jam packed with old duplexes, townhouses, row houses, and conversions.

And now adus will be moving in.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Curtis Park is the oldest subdivision in the city. It's where the first residents were stretching out. Curtis Park itself is the first park we have. The architecture in Curtis Park is filled with styles that predate the squares that are so popular around the city. This neighborhood dates back to 1870.

It's also worth noting since you conveniently ignore, RiNo is getting huge. RiNo runs adjacent to Curtis Park so what we're left with is just what you're asking for. We'll have loads of apartments right on the edge of the historic neighborhood that continues to get squeezed. Check google maps. You can walk from Cutis Park to new, basically endless housing options in RiNo in about 3 blocks. I just can't imagine what else you could want out of this, aside from pushing your blog's agenda or whatever it is you're pushing.

When I talk about destroying the neighborhood, it's not hyperbole. You can't bring back the oldest neighborhood in the city once it's gone. I'll repeat again since you don't seem to know, this neighborhood has plenty of mixed housing dating from old days. It's not just rich couples living high on the hog (on their tiny lots).

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I like to think of myself as a YIMBY but it seems that Denver has a lot of land to target that is far less efficiently used in the urban core before Curtis Park becomes a priority. Denver could more than double it's urban core population with infill in RiNo, Arapahoe Square, Golden Triangle, CBD, and eventually River Mile.

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

I'd be curious to see figures of permitted and built ADUs in town. Last time I checked its a very paltry figure. Real Estate development is only about turning a profit. I personally think they are great, I think every neighborhood should allow ADUs by right. However, I don't see them moving the needle much for desperately needed supply of missing middle homes. Rowhomes, Duplex, Chicago Flat style buildings is what we need. The city has far too little zoning that allows those forms.

The city does have far too little zoning that allows it. And the number being built is paltry, but it is increasing. It's not going to match any new subdivision but it doubled from 2013 to 18. Yes, it's a small number to double, but that's still a huge increase. And it's certainly not just for the "Tesla crowd" as you suggest.
Realestate development may be about turning a profit. But I don't consider one person building one ADU "realestate development" any more than I would use that term to describe someone putting an addition on the house. Sometimes it's about what the homeowner needs. Consider this program in west Denver.

[The Dirt]

Even if ADUs were allowed in more of the city, they are still very difficult to make money on if that's your goal. If your goal is to have more space or put your mother in law there in the short term then it may make sense, but you're looking at spending at least 250K to put up an ADU, so it would take over 8 years to recoup the cost if you're charging 2,500 in rent and not factoring in time, effort, and money spent on maintenance of the ADU. Allowing existing homes to be subdivided into duplexes or quads would have much more of an impact and would end up saving many homes from scraping.

[mr1138]

For me I guess this comes down to what are we really trying to save? The single-family character of the neighborhood or its specific architectural history? Because that should inform the tools used. Does anybody know if the Curtis Park Historic District prevents scrape-offs on every property subject to design review or only for the individual landmarks?

The existing RH-2.5 zoning appears to be pretty prescriptive. It acknowledges the historic duplexes and rowhomes that are already there, but doesn't really allow for a transition to a more urban character - it pretty much just locks in place what is already there. Those Chicago flats we have been talking about can be more like 3 stories or higher.

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by mr1138

For me I guess this comes down to what are we really trying to save? The single-family character of the neighborhood or its specific architectural history? Because that should inform the tools used. Does anybody know if the Curtis Park Historic District prevents scrape-offs on every property subject to design review or only for the individual landmarks?

Properties can be scraped inside the district as long as they are "non contributing". This means building not built in the defined period of importance, somewhere from 1880 to 1910, I think. It also means buildings that have been altered to a point of no longer having historical value. But, any new building is subject to design review to ensure they reflect the historic character of the neighborhood. This does allow for multi-story buildings if they are allowed by zoning and does not mean all new building have to look old. Consider the new United Way building on Park Ave and the townhomes on 26th and Champa that mimic rowhomes from the 1800s.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

Properties can be scraped inside the district as long as they are "non contributing". This means building not built in the defined period of importance, somewhere from 1880 to 1910, I think. It also means buildings that have been altered to a point of no longer having historical value. But, any new building is subject to design review to ensure they reflect the historic character of the neighborhood. This does allow for multi-story buildings if they are allowed by zoning and does not mean all new building have to look old. Consider the new United Way building on Park Ave and the townhomes on 26th and Champa that mimic rowhomes from the 1800s.

Thanks for the info!

It sounds like that kind of historic district has some serious power when it comes to protecting contributing structures. There's nothing invalid about streetcar-suburb style density, but as many of us have pointed out, neighborhoods in other cities seem to find a middle-ground between this kind of density and full-on city-center density that is higher than what we see in Curtis Park. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like the whole area could be up-zoned and the contributing structures would still be pretty solidly protected.

It then starts to come down to the little details of what is allowed by both the zoning and the historic protections - like the space between buildings or whether you can build a 3.5 story rowhome-style structure complete with a traditional stoop or possibly a rooftop deck or maybe a 5-story multi-unit building (not possible with RH-2.5 zoning as far as I know). I also wonder how the historic district feels about add-ons to old houses like the one I posted a few pages ago from Cap Hill. Or something like this. Again here, it would be about both what is allowed under historic protections and also what the zoning will allow - it wouldn't be possible to add retail on a parcel enshrined with exclusively residential zoning.

Edit: The notion of something being "altered to a point of no longer having historical value" has always struck me as being extremely subjective. By that definition, would many of the great Renaissance or Baroque facades that were tacked on to Medieval buildings in Europe be considered as having "altered the historical value"? What about something more recent like the Ellie Caulkins Opera House? At what point do we determine that altering or adding on to a building - the way most cities have grown for millennia - has "damaged" its integrity? Kind of a rhetorical point there but food for thought.