DENVER | Main Development Thread #7 - Page 210

Highrize · #**4181** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 5:12 PM**

Now to add something to the discussion since I have a frame of reference. I live in East Wash Park in a 1927 built Tudor. There is no housing stock here in need of preservation here, these are all Tudors and Bungalows. My house was bought in the 70's for less than 100K, it's now worth over 800K. Nobody in their right minds would pay 800K for this house and that is why I'm not upset that houses on my street get scrapped for a McMansion. I don't actually like the term McMansion in this capacity, I view them as modern versions of the Classic Denver Square you see in Cap Hill.

At the end of the day land value is going to determine the type of building a site gets. When you pay 800K for a lot in Wash park you aren't wanting 1200 sq ft. You are going to build something that is worth your investment and it's going to be big.

As for the single family homes vs up-zoning. There are many small pockets of multi-family homes in East Wash Park, and many don't even show up on the city's online zoning maps. Small converted garages, modest apartments, small duplexes and 4 plexes and 8 plexes. They fit in the neighborhood just fine. The only thing they would really impact if more were allowed would be street parking, and while the large amounts of on-street parking in my neighborhood is a huge plus it's certainly not a rite and we would be just fine if ADU's or multi family expanded here.

I think the slot homes in Sloan's Lake freaked people out because they weren't used to it, and I'll admit it's a shame that some of them ignore the street and become little compounds but it's only strange because there are so few of them. In 20 years when more of the housing stock turns over and multi family becomes the norm and not the outlier people will be criticizing the Single family homes for looking out of place.

Yes there are plenty of brownfield and greenfield sites around and in Denver on former industrial or railroad sites. Yes those should be developed and the best urban planning of the day should apply to them so that they can be developed smartly and diversely. but why would you want to point all development there? Develop everywhere at once and let it grow organically.

Highrize · #**4182** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Welcome to the posting side of the forum. Sorry I frustrate you. It seems as though affordability, NIMBYism and zoning are Hot Topics that everyone has an opinion about. I typically don't start the topic but yes I do enjoy expressing my views.

I wouldn't say you frustrate me. We've only just met. I've been reading this forum for years and I think you are a thoughtful and well spoken forum member. Your post or well cited and on topic and often insightful and informative, and sometimes funny to boot.

I do feel however that you get stuck on topics and that being that you haven't lived here for a while you might be referring to the Denver of Christmas past and not the present. Sometimes your post just don't ring true to me as someone who has lived here my whole life but can't ignore what has happened to this city in the last decade specifically.

corey · #**4183** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 6:52 PM**

Whoops

corey · #**4184** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 6:55 PM**

What Amazon originally described what they wanted for their HQ2 city and what they actually went for are completely different. They said they wanted a city with tons of outdoor amenities, great quality of life, and affordability to lure the best employees. Instead they chose huge cities that are not known for their access to the great outdoors and certainly not affordable. Amazon is a retailer so NYC doesn’t surprise me because they are going to have the greatest labor pool of people in marketing and business. Jeff Bezos loves to mingle with high level politicians and affect government policy so Washington, DC doesn’t surprise me either. He has owned a house there for years and I think he would have become a politician in a different life. As Amazon expands into other areas (Space, etc.) being in Washington will be important. Furthermore, I think Amazon just wanted HQ in both the Pacific and Eastern time zones. In reality, their headquarters search was just a farce and a waste of time for all of the other cities that took part in it. They were just providing leverage to get great deals from NYC and Virginia.

bulldurhamer · #**4185** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highrize

Now to add something to the discussion since I have a frame of reference. I live in East Wash Park in a 1927 built Tudor. There is no housing stock here in need of preservation here, these are all Tudors and Bungalows. My house was bought in the 70's for less than 100K, it's now worth over 800K. Nobody in their right minds would pay 800K for this house and that is why I'm not upset that houses on my street get scrapped for a McMansion. I don't actually like the term McMansion in this capacity, I view them as modern versions of the Classic Denver Square you see in Cap Hill.

At the end of the day land value is going to determine the type of building a site gets. When you pay 800K for a lot in Wash park you aren't wanting 1200 sq ft. You are going to build something that is worth your investment and it's going to be big.

As for the single family homes vs up-zoning. There are many small pockets of multi-family homes in East Wash Park, and many don't even show up on the city's online zoning maps. Small converted garages, modest apartments, small duplexes and 4 plexes and 8 plexes. They fit in the neighborhood just fine. The only thing they would really impact if more were allowed would be street parking, and while the large amounts of on-street parking in my neighborhood is a huge plus it's certainly not a rite and we would be just fine if ADU's or multi family expanded here.

I think the slot homes in Sloan's Lake freaked people out because they weren't used to it, and I'll admit it's a shame that some of them ignore the street and become little compounds but it's only strange because there are so few of them. In 20 years when more of the housing stock turns over and multi family becomes the norm and not the outlier people will be criticizing the Single family homes for looking out of place.

Yes there are plenty of brownfield and greenfield sites around and in Denver on former industrial or railroad sites. Yes those should be developed and the best urban planning of the day should apply to them so that they can be developed smartly and diversely. but why would you want to point all development there? Develop everywhere at once and let it grow organically.

I'm curious about why this was stated so definitively. Can you explain more why a 90 year old gingerbread house shouldn't be saved other than it can be replaced with a giant new house? What's makes an old Tutor any worse than the classic square you mentioned? Classic squares tend to be just that, boring squares. Tutors and bungalows are much more interesting on many different levels so I'm wondering where the line is being drawn and who is drawing it. Does the city have some guidance here on what is worthy of preservation? Frankly, the old Tutor you want to scrape is probably better suited to be restored and saved than any of these old Queen Anne's that were built without bathrooms that seem to be hanging around.

SnyderBock · #**4186** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 8:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twister244

On a different note, we now have an idea of the different sites that were pitched for HQ2:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/12/0...roposed-sites/

No huge surprises here. RiNo, River Mile, etc.

I'm not upset Amazon passed up Denver, but I was hoping for some of those last minute high profile mentions that other cities got. For example, Amazon made a second visit to Chicago, among a couple other cities. It would have been nice to see that as well.

But..... in the end, Denver still has a TON going for it.

Can you imagine the opportunity Amazon turned down by not locating HQ2 at Pena Station to collaborate with Panasonic to develop a smart city? We're talking about an entire community embedded from the bottom up with AI, Cloud, 5G and fiber-optic data transmissions woven into all things from streetlights, to cars, to homes , to appliances to personal devices. Amazon would have had an entire community to test and develop it's personal assistant technologies, driverless cars, robotics delivery systems, etc... It's an incredibly huge missed opportunity and terribly short sighted on Amazon's behalf.

Highrize · #**4187** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 8:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

I'm curious about why this was stated so definitively. Can you explain more why a 90 year old gingerbread house shouldn't be saved other than it can be replaced with a giant new house? What's makes an old Tutor any worse than the classic square you mentioned? Classic squares tend to be just that, boring squares. Tutors and bungalows are much more interesting on many different levels so I'm wondering where the line is being drawn and who is drawing it. Does the city have some guidance here on what is worthy of preservation? Frankly, the old Tutor you want to scrape is probably better suited to be restored and saved than any of these old Queen Anne's that were built without bathrooms that seem to be hanging around.

I say that because there are thousands of them all over the city. They are NOT unique, historical, or even particularly well constructed... they aren't even insulated and have just brick walls.

They reason they should be replaced is that the land they sit on is too valuable. A buyer in these neighborhoods have a couple choices. pay 800K for an non-renovated, inefficient home and leave it be (rare), buy and renovated it for a couple hundred grand and its worth a million 800k house + 200K renovation = a million dollar home (less rare but still rare these days because it's not increasing the equity of the home), or scrape and build; 800k + 500K construction but it's now worth 2+ million (likely and most attractive to a buyer or developer)

It's the same in any city in the world, as land values rise, the buildings on that land reflect the value of the land.

I'm not saying bulldoze the neighborhood, I'm just saying what is going to be built is going to be built.

Then there is the whole ADU's or Multi family zoning debate. All of the above is a discussion about updating single family housing stock. I argued earlier that multi family or ADU wouldn't hurt the neighborhood, but will agree it will change the character slightly.

corey · #**4188** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 9:23 PM**

I’m sure Amazon, and companies like Tesla and Google, will build technological research and development campuses in places like Denver’s Aerotropolis. I don’t see Amazon’s headquarters in NYC and Washington DC having very much of it.

SirLucasTheGreat · #**4189** Posted **Dec 7, 2018, 11:44 PM**

Sam Hill · #**4190** Posted **Dec 8, 2018, 12:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Finally! It was worth the effort my friend. Nice pic.

SirLucasTheGreat · #**4191** Posted **Dec 8, 2018, 1:38 AM**

Thanks a lot! Sorry for the technical issues on my end.

CastleScott · #**4192** Posted **Dec 8, 2018, 6:02 PM**

^ I agree with Sam Hill-that's a gorgeous pic. That spot right off of Speer and I-25 has always been a great angle for downtown shots and one by Diamond Hill as well-I remember that was a favorite spot of where photographers of post cards would take their pics of downtown Denver.

SirLucasTheGreat · #**4193** Posted **Dec 8, 2018, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CastleScott

^ I agree with Sam Hill-that's a gorgeous pic. That spot right off of Speer and I-25 has always been a great angle for downtown shots and one by Diamond Hill as well-I remember that was a favorite spot of where photographers of post cards would take their pics of downtown Denver.

Thanks a lot! I know that many people were upset with how the Confluence Tower blocks part of the the skyline when coming down on Speer but I think that the nighttime illumination will become a signature feature of the cityscape.

Cirrus · #**4194** Posted **Dec 9, 2018, 2:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by corey

They said they wanted a city with tons of outdoor amenities, great quality of life, and affordability to lure the best employees.

This is an interesting comment, and is literally the first time I have heard "tons of outdoor amenities" listed as one of Amazon's desired traits. Was it reported that way in Denver? I wonder if the media in different cities reported slightly different things.

Anyway, I do think Amazon mostly knew where they wanted to go ahead of time. I also find it interesting that with now 3 data points (South Lake Union, Long Island City, and Crystal City) Amazon is 3 for 3 on picking urban, transit-rich downtown-adjacent-but-not-downtown-proper redevelopment sites. Everywhere they go is basically that city's version of the CPV in Denver.

SnyderBock · #**4195** Posted **Dec 9, 2018, 7:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is an interesting comment, and is literally the first time I have heard "tons of outdoor amenities" listed as one of Amazon's desired traits. Was it reported that way in Denver? I wonder if the media in different cities reported slightly different things.

Anyway, I do think Amazon mostly knew where they wanted to go ahead of time. I also find it interesting that with now 3 data points (South Lake Union, Long Island City, and Crystal City) Amazon is 3 for 3 on picking urban, transit-rich downtown-adjacent-but-not-downtown-proper redevelopment sites. Everywhere they go is basically that city's version of the CPV in Denver.

So perhaps the most suitable Denver site for Amazon was the Elitches River Mile proposal and perhaps it was simply determined to not be shovel ready. River North would have likely been the next best choice, but perhaps it was not desirable enough, or issues with buildable lots not being concentrated close enough for their campus?

I am also surprised they split HQ2 into two cities so close to one another. A West coast, central and east coast location would have been more logical. Having 3 HQ cities is really more like having regional HQ locations.

Stonemans_rowJ · #**4196** Posted **Dec 9, 2018, 7:23 PM**

Probably has nothing to do with the sites themsevles in Denver; they wanted those other cities but were extracting an even bigger incentive package by soliciting proposals.

CastleScott · #**4197** Posted **Dec 9, 2018, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Probably has nothing to do with the sites themsevles in Denver; they wanted those other cities but were extracting an even bigger incentive package by soliciting proposals.

This is exactly true I believe..

Quote:

Thanks a lot! I know that many people were upset with how the Confluence Tower blocks part of the the skyline when coming down on Speer but I think that the nighttime illumination will become a signature feature of the cityscape.

Your very welcome Sir LucasThe Great.

And I like the Confluence Tower as it ENHANCES downtown-one thing it blocks out is 1801 California St and a few others but not bad plus its great that the nighttime illumination looks to be working well (the CPV needed an exclamation tower to round things out). Too bad that that the Four Seasons NMBIY's killed the 1144 15th St one as well as a few killing the one that could have happened on the block 162 office tower.

corey · #**4198** Posted **Dec 10, 2018, 12:27 AM**

If you look at the piece that the WSJ wrote shortly after Amazon announced its HQ2 search where they concluded Denver best met Amazon’s requirement list you’ll see that things like access to outdoor activities (regionally) and great quality of life were listed by Amazon as being important to attract the best job candidates. This is why I think Amazon is more interested in attracting large numbers of top notch employees in the businesss and marketing realm for their HQ2. Generally tech companies look more to cities like Denver, Austin, Portland, Seattle, etc. in order to attract new graduates in computer science and engineering. I think even with east coast HQ2 and HQ3 Amazon will still open more specialized tech facilities in tech hot spots around the country.

mhays · #**4199** Posted **Dec 10, 2018, 12:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This is an interesting comment, and is literally the first time I have heard "tons of outdoor amenities" listed as one of Amazon's desired traits. Was it reported that way in Denver? I wonder if the media in different cities reported slightly different things.

Anyway, I do think Amazon mostly knew where they wanted to go ahead of time. I also find it interesting that with now 3 data points (South Lake Union, Long Island City, and Crystal City) Amazon is 3 for 3 on picking urban, transit-rich downtown-adjacent-but-not-downtown-proper redevelopment sites. Everywhere they go is basically that city's version of the CPV in Denver.

They started opening offices in SLU in 2010, but most of their latest growth is in the Denny Triangle, which is an extension of the CBD (Denny Way is the typical dividing line). I suspect this has been intentional and due to employee preference.

comoneymaker · #**4200** Posted **Dec 10, 2018, 10:05 AM**

Heard a interesting piece on NPR today. It was talking about places like Denver, Minneapolis and other cities will not see slowing growth and only increasing growth due to climate change relocation. They said 400k people have moved to new places from Puerto Rico since the hurricane. Approximately 4 mil have moved this year alone due to bigger storms, rising sea's and fires and drought. It is estimated in the next 10 years 40 million across the world will move in the next 10 years. Islands off of Texas and many other coastal cities are leaving and looking at cities like Denver that are less likely to have natural disasters.
One lady from Texas who lost her house twice in the last 10 years said she was looking at Colorado cause other states like Oklahoma still have big storms with big tornado's which are increasing.

So looks like we are screwed lol.