Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

coloradosun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 130 posts

Re: Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

#61

Post by mw1 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #34
mattcantstop wrote: post #14

I think Denver (I live here) is an example of our horrible zoning. We have entirely focused our cities (especially Denver and RTD (Regional Transportation District)) around people commuting in for work. This is one of the main principles of BAD design, where you create an entire area around close to a single use (offices). That creates a very fragile city. This "single use" zoning that the US proliferated makes us re…

I also live in Denver. The biggest problem with downtown isn't zoning (though that may be a part), it's the homeless people. Who's going to want to go hang out on 16th when there's a dude asking you for money on every street corner? I don't know what the solution is, but it seems clear to me that revitalizing downtown starts with removing the "I'm going to have to deal with vagrants" factor.

The only solution is to provide stable long-term housing and social support. Most else has been tried, but it doesn’t seem that you can punish people and make them less poor. Cops continue to sweep through and steal their belongings, but that clearly won’t solve the problem, and hasn’t. You can throw them all in jail, but that’s more expensive than providing non-jailed housing and rehabilitation services. You can forcefully or enticingly move them along with cops or free bus tickets, but that just shifts the problem elsewhere temporarily. As long as we continue to decide to solve this by increasing funds for cops above all other services in a city, this is the result we will get.

Re: Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

#62

Post by renewiltord »

burkaman wrote: post #50
renewiltord wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a POSIWID sense, American socialism’s purpose is to prevent affordable housing and create parks. Indistinguishable from what rich neighbors of a plot of land would like, coincidentally.

The purpose of a system is what it does, but here you're saying that the purpose of [American socialism] is what [the Denver DSA] does.

Interestingly, many DSA chapters follow the same playbook so the Denver DSA is fairly representative of the DSA, which is the largest socialist organization in the US. So either the DSA is not socialist, not representative of American socialists, or is representative and American socialists are a device to stop affordable housing and create parks.

Which proposition or conclusion above do you disagree with and why?

Re: Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

#63

Post by burkaman »

bethekidyouwant wrote: post #42
lux-lux-lux wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ‘golf course’ was unused land protected by a conservation easement. There were other options for housing development.

Why not the conserve the land outside of cities where people want to live?

Based on what I know about Denver, people there want to live outside the city, not in Denver itself. Everyone I know that moved to "Denver" actually moved somewhere like an hour's drive from downtown, and not because they couldn't afford something in the city. Here's a map of average housing prices in the area: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/3e87d9f631dd470ab05ab.... There are some expensive neighborhoods in the city, but I think this map looks very different from most other American cities.

Re: Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

#64

Post by [deleted] »

boelboel wrote: post #44
mothballed wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's already enough plumbing in there for a whole office to shit when they get to the office. History favors the bold, and code inspectors blabbering about "written in blood" don't see all the homeless people they kill via reduced access to housing. I've seen plenty of artist collectives that manage it; on paper they are office/industrial but actually everyone lives there. Every once in awhile one burns down but t…

Artists are a shrinking population, I wonder if having most of the top floors (20 out of 30) converted to extremely large luxury apartments (5000sqft+) and only 'adding capacity'to plumbing and what not for the lower 10 floors, which would house smaller units, would be economically viable. Although actual luxury market requires high ceiling so probably wouldn't work out. I'm sure many many people have thought of all…

[deleted]

Re: Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

#65

Post by wing-_-nuts »

f1shy wrote: post #53
mattcantstop wrote: post #14

I think Denver (I live here) is an example of our horrible zoning. We have entirely focused our cities (especially Denver and RTD (Regional Transportation District)) around people commuting in for work. This is one of the main principles of BAD design, where you create an entire area around close to a single use (offices). That creates a very fragile city. This "single use" zoning that the US proliferated makes us re…

Everything has pros and cons. I lived in both setups, and the mixed residential/commertial/recreational can be very noisy. Also big parks, if not well illuminated, become unsafe for the families around.

>mixed residential/commertial/recreational can be very noisy.

I'd rather live in a somewhat 'noisy' vibrant neighborhood where I can walk to shops or restaurants than an absolutely dead residential cul-de-sac where I have to literally drive miles to the nearest amenity. If the noise bothers you at night, get a sound machine or install triple pane windows.

I understand having industrial separate from everything else, but commercial and residential should always be blended IMHO, and SFH zoning should not exist.

I would kill for reformed zoning standards like they have in Japan.

Re: Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

#66

Post by pseudalopex »

46493168 wrote: post #40
mooreds wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This podcast is about the NYC market, but a good deep dive into why this is not a simple proposition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNkLcD3PKyk

And yet Boston is doing it. https://www.boston.gov/news/officials-celebrate-first-100-un...

rbanffy said a lot of vacant offices could be converted. Boston's mayor said 780 units were planned.

Re: Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

#67

Post by wing-_-nuts »

someuser54541 wrote: post #5
rbanffy wrote: post #2

Looks like there is an opportunity to convert a lot of that into residential space.

I read something at some point that it's more expensive to convert these into residential buildings than it is to literally demolish and rebuild. I'm not entirely sure how that math works out, or why, because one would think it couldn't be that complicated. Maybe someone here knows more about this.

>at some point that it's more expensive to convert these into residential buildings than it is to literally demolish and rebuild.

Yep, and that's fine. It's literally a tangible instance of 'creative destruction'. I see people arguing that oh, we have to RTO to save the current model and it seems so backwards to me.

Re: Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

#68

Post by wing-_-nuts »

Ok, sounds like normal 'creative destruction' to me. Time to raze useless office space and build housing in it's place.

Also, I don't get how companies can make such a big song and dance about their climate commitments on the one hand while simultaneously insisting on RTO on the other. The greenest commute is one that never happens. If the tax code needs to change to give companies credit for their employees cutting out their commute, so be it.

Re: Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

#69

Post by f1shy »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #65
f1shy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything has pros and cons. I lived in both setups, and the mixed residential/commertial/recreational can be very noisy. Also big parks, if not well illuminated, become unsafe for the families around.

>mixed residential/commertial/recreational can be very noisy. I'd rather live in a somewhat 'noisy' vibrant neighborhood where I can walk to shops or restaurants than an absolutely dead residential cul-de-sac where I have to literally drive miles to the nearest amenity. If the noise bothers you at night, get a sound machine or install triple pane windows. I understand having industrial separate from everything else,…

I liked very much Japan or Buenos Aires. Sure. Just pointing out there are downsides also. Traffic is a mess, and that shows in times for ambulances and firefighters. I like things of both. I guess people should vote by choosing to live where they want

Re: Downtown Denver's office vacancy rate grows to 38.2%

#70

Post by mothballed »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #65
f1shy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything has pros and cons. I lived in both setups, and the mixed residential/commertial/recreational can be very noisy. Also big parks, if not well illuminated, become unsafe for the families around.

>mixed residential/commertial/recreational can be very noisy. I'd rather live in a somewhat 'noisy' vibrant neighborhood where I can walk to shops or restaurants than an absolutely dead residential cul-de-sac where I have to literally drive miles to the nearest amenity. If the noise bothers you at night, get a sound machine or install triple pane windows. I understand having industrial separate from everything else,…

Houston might be up your alley.
Post reply on HN