Denver hasn't slowed down

[Rusty]

The biggest mistake KC ever made, IMO, was not making Loose Park another "Forest Park" (STL).  If you had an expanded Loose, with teh Nelson & Zoo on the perimeter, the Plaza would be the Premier place to live in the Midwest.  A light rail spine connecting Loose to Westport to DT to the Airport would already be done.

Or Penn Valley, as originally planned.

[Maitre D]

Or Penn Valley, as originally planned.

That would have been outstanding as well.

Is it too late to re-locate the Zoo there?  I know the costs would be exponential but my gawd, putting a zoo next to a WWI museum next to the Science Museum....sorry.  Just maeks too much sense.  That's why it won't happen.

[DanCa]

Thats always been my biggest beef with Denver - its so flat, with so few trees.  It reminds me of phoenix, vegas, and other desert cities in that there is no way to hide things like power plants, dumps, etc. 

I think Denver's a lot greener than Phoenix or Vegas - we're not in a desert.  See Grid's pic above.  Trees don't grow in abundance outside the city, but I'm sure that's due to the more arid climate.  The trees in Denver's old neighborhoods rival any of KC's old neighborhoods. 

[KC_JAYHAWK]

It looks like I'm moving to Denver for a job opportunity and just a change of scenery.  I want to live close to downtown, but not in a condo.  Are there an abundance of older rental homes/duplexes close to downtown Denver?  Kind of crazy now, with selling my house, so I haven't had much time to explore the city.

Thanks for any input.

[Downtowner]

An expanded Loose Park? It was given to the city in 1929..I'm sure a lot of the surrounding homes were already built. Like saying we should have had an expanded state line.

Yes, DanCa, I've read several times where Denver refers to its flatness. Also noted on hometodenver.com . I think Wichita actually has more terrain variation.

[DanCa]

An expanded Loose Park? It was given to the city in 1929..I'm sure a lot of the surrounding homes were already built. Like saying we should have had an expanded state line.

Yes, DanCa, I've read several times where Denver refers to its flatness. Also noted on hometodenver.com . I think Wichita actually has more terrain variation.

Wichita, Denver - twins separated at birth   Are you referring to only the blocks in downtown Denver?  It's pretty flat, except on the east end it goes up hill.  I actually live here so I know what the terrain is like.  I grew up in KC and thought it was "flat" because that's what everyone said it was, even though that's not true.  I have never heard anyone here refer to Denver as "flat", complain about the scenery or refer to the environment as barren or treeless. 

[DanCa]

It looks like I'm moving to Denver for a job opportunity and just a change of scenery.  I want to live close to downtown, but not in a condo.  Are there an abundance of older rental homes/duplexes close to downtown Denver?  Kind of crazy now, with selling my house, so I haven't had much time to explore the city.

Thanks for any input.

I don't know how many or what the prices would be, but there are plenty of old houses near downtown.  There are also many old duplexes/4 plexes around that are usually for rent.  You might want to check out areas south of downtown along Broadway - cool neighborhoods, lots to do and I would think plenty of rentals. 

[moderne]

Denver is also called the Queen City of the Plains.  It has very little rainfall because it is in the rain shadow of the front range.  Thus not much foliage.  A great deal of the water supply must come through a tunnel under the mountains from the west side of the continental divide where more precipitation falls.  With global warming and a reduction of winter snowpack and spring meltdown, water supplies could be threatened.  Of course the flip side of the aridity is all those delightful sunnydays without humidity where the air is like champagne.

[DanCa]

Denver is also called the Queen City of the Plains.  It has very little rainfall because it is in the rain shadow of the front range.  Thus not much foliage.  A great deal of the water supply must come through a tunnel under the mountains from the west side of the continental divide where more precipitation falls.  With global warming and a reduction of winter snowpack and spring meltdown, water supplies could be threatened.  Of course the flip side of the aridity is all those delightful sunnydays without humidity where the air is like champagne.

Yeah, it has its positives and negatives.  When I was in Chicago a couple weeks ago the humidity was choking to me.  Actually, this year has been pretty wet in Denver - at least by Denver's standards.  The unprecidented winter snows, a wet Spring and fairly regular monsunal moisture has the water table so high, sump pumps are woking overtime around here.  I believe most of Denver's water supply comes from the Cheeseman reservoir, which relies on melting snowpack to keep it full. 

[City Travel]

Hello all.  First off, I have enjoyed reading this blog; some very intelligent forumers here.  I travel extensively and love learning about cities all around the country.  Living in Seattle, it is fun to compare what's happening here to elsewhere.  I find your Denver discussion of interest because recently I have been going there fairly often.
Some observations:
-I agree with KC Grid, the wide-ranging urban development in Denver is astounding. It's not centered on one area...it is truly city wide. 
-Lodo is nearly built out, and it has happened in just about 10 years.  Whoever on here said there were no historic buildings that have been redeveloped sure doesn't know that town..block after block of old warehouses have been converted and now new infill is taking the place of parking lots.  The next huge project surrounds Union Station (which will be the new transportation hub of the region.  A couple billion dollars of new construction is planned.
-Parts of town once thought to be ghetto are now home to some really awesome redevelpment.  Like I said it is happening virtually everywhere.
-There is even "urban" development in what have been known as bedroom communities.
-All along the transit lines are huge investments in multi-unit residential and retail development. 

What brought this on?  Lessons cities can learn:
-It takes great leadership.  According to my Denver colleagues, it started when the city was at it's lowest during the oil bust of the 1980's.  Denver had been a oil boom town (remember Dynasty?), and almost overnight the industry crashed..leading to a deep local recession.  That is when they had a mayor who said 'imagine a great city'  (that was his slogan).  He sold to the public a big bond issue to improve infrastructure.  He then sold to the voters the plan to build the 16th Street Mall downtown.  Then a new airport (that was a 7 billion dollar deal).
Subsequent mayors have pushed through new stadiums, convention center, art museum, library, and the biggest of all, light rail (this is a plan to build a COMPLETE system...not just a line here and there).
-It takes regional cooperation.  No city can do it alone.  Denver got it's suburbs on board it's vision.  There seems to be an attitude there that a great central city will benefit ALL cities of the region.
-Infill is key.  While some cities are busy building tall trophy towers, few have real street-level health.  5 ten story buildings filling empty lots is much more valuable than one 50 story building.  The fabric of a city
is of prime importance.  The tall buildings will come once other land is filled.
-Perhaps the most striking thing I've found in Denver is the attitude that anything is possible. People there have adopted the urban lifestyle as the way of the future...and they put their money where their mouths are.  They really do love and believe in their city. We are lucky to have that in Seattle too (but I get highly frustrated by a public here that is yet to vote for wide-ranging transit. And an attitude that the Bill Gates and Paul Allen's of the city will fund everything).

Denver isn't perfect, but I think there are some valuable lessons all cities can learn from their example. I think KC is a great town.  You've got good "bones" to build on..and now it seems that quality leadership is essential.  I look forward to visiting there again soon.

[eomaha.com]

I've had my own ideas about why there's a handful of cities such as Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle, etc... which seem to flourish at a much higher level of growth/development... than other comparably sized cities.  It's more than just leadership and 'anything is possible'.  It's not as if KC isn't investing billions of it's own on development... but it's relatively isolated to a few parts of the city.  Entire stretches of urban KC are being totally ignored... the same is true in smaller Omaha... and many other 'booming' cities.

Simply put... the Minneapolis' and Denver's of the world... didn't abandon their cores to the same extent which other older, midwestern cities did.  Why did these other cities abandon their cores?  Well, you need only look as far as the demographic break down of these two groups.  Yes, it's all about white flight.  We abandoned our inner city... and now we're hard pressed to return (save to the little urban havens we've carved out... and aren't we proud of them).  Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis are all thriving because they never left their inner city boarded up and blighted, at least not to the extent midwestern cities did (by the way, I look at Des Moines as a mini Minneapolis ... also absent the social ills baggage, I think it is poised to boom big time).

Until we figure out how to include ALL of our inner city in revitalization... and that first includes alot of social/economic reconciliation, we're going to continue to eat the dust of these other cities.

Sorry... just my opinion.

[Maitre D]

-It takes regional cooperation.  No city can do it alone.  Denver got it's suburbs on board it's vision.  There seems to be an attitude there that a great central city will benefit ALL cities of the region.

You simply don't understand the dynamics of the border here.  It's far worse than I used to give it credit for.  People in KCMO really would rather tax themsevles into an oblivion than let their NFL team move across the state line.

The "power" center in most cities is still downtown or nearby.  In KC, it's pretty split btw. DT and a large suburb.  That's why there's no cooperation, the decisionmakers don't even live by each other.

We have spread-out assets too, which makes "cooperation" impossible.  Even within KCMO, where the assets reside, there are diff. ideas & groups protecting their stake.  The Sports Complex, Zoo, and Airport are so far apart that diff factions compete within the same city.

[DaveKCMO]

i think i would disagree and say that denver did indeed abandon its core. if the tech/telecom boom occurred somewhere else, we would be talking about that city's decade-old renaissance instead. you can credit smart city and metro planners, but they had a catalyst for growth pushing them along.

[GRID]

You simply don't understand the dynamics of the border here.  It's far worse than I used to give it credit for.  People in KCMO really would rather tax themselves into an oblivion than let their NFL team move across the state line.

The "power" center in most cities is still downtown or nearby.  In KC, it's pretty split btw. DT and a large suburb.  That's why there's no cooperation, the decisionmakers don't even live by each other.

We have spread-out assets too, which makes "cooperation" impossible.  Even within KCMO, where the assets reside, there are diff. ideas & groups protecting their stake.  The Sports Complex, Zoo, and Airport are so far apart that diff factions compete within the same city.

Oh, I think he understands quite well. And you pretty much proved what is wrong with KC in your post which is typical from a JoCo perspective.

We will help fund a stadium if you move the stadium to Kansas.  Why would you vacate a perfectly good location for a football stadium to build a new one even further away from everything by the speedway?  Because you are a Kansan.

There is a reason that Coors and Investco are downtown and not in Westminster or Littleton.  Hell, even Boulder funded the stadiums.  The entire area is on the same page.

If there were no Truman Sports Complex and we were going to build a new downtown baseball stadium and a new stadium for the Chiefs as well, then sure, it would make total sense to consider a KS side location.  But that's not the case and frankly, it makes absolutely no sense to vacate the TSC "just to have the stadium in KS", none at all. And building two new stadiums was not in KC's cards.  I do not or did not see the metro coming together to destroy the TSC and build two new stadiums at a cost that would exceed 1.5 billion dollars.  That would not pass.  No way in hell.  But KS could have at least star bonded one stadium and taken it from the TSC or the teams could have left.  Jackson County passed the tax.  It's over.

So, yea, why would Jackson County residents vote no and let the stadium move across state line so they have yet another massive eyesore to develop after watching yet another long standing KCMO facility or company move to KS for greener pastures leaving a mess behind.

I know you don't see it, and you could never put yourself in the shoes of somebody that lives in KCMO or Jackson County, but try just once to see the other side of the issue.

Do you truly want KC to be a world class metropolitan area?  Well, it's going to be very difficult if the suburbs don't want to help fund regional assest, most of which are in KCMO and should remain in KCMO.

It's just too bad we can't figure that out.

[kccrackednut]

Denver Post this mornnig (9/16) about high rise living in downtown Denver:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6900272

[aknowledgeableperson]

Doubt if those prices would fly in KC.  At least downtown.  The Plaza maybe, but not that many buildings all at once.

[GRID]

Thanks kccrackednut for the post.

A lot of people on this forum can really do themselves some good by reading that article.  It says what I and others have been saying about the KC highrise condo market.  There is none in KC.  There is no market to satisfy any sort of demand for this type of living in KC.  There could be if we ever get a spark, get that first new major highrise condo up.  Even during these very slow residential times, there is a market for this type of living in most larger cities.  KC has yet to develop a high end, high density condo market.  And by the time we do, I'm not sure we will ever really be major player in this market because we will have lost so many of our baby boomer demographic (people most likely to buy them) to other options and other cities.

I'm not being a downer, I'm being a realist. I'm also comparing KC to the largest, most progressive towns.  Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle, Chicago, Portland, Atlanta, San Diego, Boston and possibly even St Louis.

You can compare KC to many other towns and make the city look great.  We blow away OKC, Phoenix, Sacramento, Houston (outside galleria) etc.

But I always try to stack KC up against the top towns.  That's the only way KC will reach its potential and there is no reason we could not be where Denver is today in the near future if we play our cards right.

The first thing we do is continue to invest a shitload of money into the city.  Spend some money, continue to rebuild infrastructure, install transit and subsidize necessary venues and needs such as the first couple of high rise condo towers, a convention center hotel etc.

Funny how how there is a 55 story mixed use tower going in between the new mostly city funded Hyatt convention hotel and the new near billion dollar Colorado Convention Center.

If you knew what Denver looked like in 1985, you would know this this stuff does work.

If Denver didn't do what they have done.  Spend a ton of money downtown, they could just as easily be a Phoenix or Salt Lake City (less so).  They both are far more suburbanized, even with their respective "mountain" or whatever other draws.

We are doing just the opposite.  The city is no longer "aggressive" in building up the city and I think that is one main reason why nothing has happened to any major degree since H&R Block announced they were coming downtown.  Actually developers in this city have to be taking second looks and even attempting a project in KCMO with allt he anti-developer BS that is being spewed about.

We are still not in a position to wait for development to just happen and we certainly are still not ready to demand full market rate development (no incentives).  Not that KC will ever be about to step away from that because KC is too suburban and offers too many far cheaper alternatives to ever have urban development occur without some level of incentives.  Mostly for parking and land acquisition and clearance.  Most midwestern towns have to subsidize urban development if that is the kind of development they want.

Anyway...

[kard]

GRID, curious as to how Denver stacks up in the comparison the Star did on incentives a few weeks ago.

[ComandanteCero]

I think the thread title is kind of misleading.... considering Denver is now being held up as one of the prime examples of the mortgage bust going on.  If it hasn't slowed down this year, it definitely will by 2008. 

The boom over there is sexy, but it's definitely coming at a cost.  I'll take KC's slow and steady approach, rather than a boom/bust cycle that creates a lot of problems.

[aknowledgeableperson]

If you knew what Denver looked like in 1985, you would know this this stuff does work.

Don't forget, the Denver area was more like a boom town in the late 70's and 80's.  It was a hotbed that attracted all sorts of money.  Probably the only time KC area saw something similiar would have been after the Civil War with the railroads and meatpackers coming in.