Hundreds of people gathered on Wednesday night at a listening session on the RedPeak development in West Highland.
The raucous four-hour West Highland neighborhood meeting on Wednesday night that that drew more than 200 people and dozens of speakers – all of whom spoke against the three, 5-story apartment buildings planned by Denver-based RedPeak Properties – raised some questions in my mind.
I’m bringing up some of these still unanswered questions and observations in this column, not because I am taking sides, but because I truly believe an open dialogue is fundamentally important to a free society. Also, I think this proposed development, and the issue swirling around it, such as forcing a down-zoning against the wishes of the owner of the property, could very well prove to be a microcosm of future developer-neighbor disputes across Denver.
As in West Highland, other neighborhoods may very well be in the dark about potential construction allowed under last year’s massive overhaul of the zoning code. Many other neighbors may reach the same conclusion as many in West Highland fear – that tall and dense developments could change the character of an area and accelerate congestion and parking woes.
The motto of E.W. Scripps, the owner of the Rocky Mountain News, where I was a reporter for 26 years, before it shut down in 2009, was “Give light and the people will find their own way.”
So in the interest in shining light, here are some observations.
1. Does the construction quality matter? One of the audience members who packed the “listening session” at the Highland Event Center at West 29th Avenue and Julian Street, said that he did not care, nor does he think the neighborhood cares, that RedPeak is proposing luxury apartment units on the parcels just north of West 32nd Avenue on Lowell Boulevard, Meade Street and West Moncrieff Place. Mike Zoellner, president of RedPeak, said they plan finishes and construction levels higher than found in most luxury condo projects.
I wonder what that resident and others would have thought about another proposal for the land, which until now has not been publicized.
Mercy Housing close to developing land
What few people know is that Denver-based Mercy Housing Inc., one of the nation’s largest owners and developers of affordable housing, had those three parcels under contract about four years ago, when the land was zoned R-4.
Mercy Housing, a well-respected non-profit that has developed more than $2.2 billion in affordable housing across the country, was planning to develop the three parcels to the maximum allowable density, which was far greater under R-4 than the current zoning of U-MS-5. The deal, which would have included market-rate rental apartments and retail, as well as housing for low- and moderate-income residents, did not happen because the Denver Office of Economic Development had not targeted that area for affordable housing and wouldn’t help finance the deal.
Jennifer Erixon, senior vice president of real estate development for Mercy Housing, was unaware of the RedPeak proposal, but when I told her about it on Friday afternoon, she said she thought the sites would be “incredibly marketable” as a luxury development.
If the RedPeak deal fell through, she said she thought the sites would be just as appealing as an affordable housing development.
“Absolutely,” she said. “We are seeing an affordable, rental housing shortage in Denver. We have long waiting lists for our multifamily projects. We really liked that site because of its proximity to downtown and public transportation. We also think it is important to diversify neighborhoods with affordable housing.”
While many people embrace affordable housing, I have found over the years that many people do not want it near their homes, even though groups such as Mercy Housing develop units that are virtually indistinguishable in appearance from high-end units.
3. Impact of the church. The existing church has a congregation of 500 people and offers many wonderful services to the neighborhood, such as baby-sitting to couples wanting a date night.
I couldn’t help but wonder if a lot of people arriving and leaving a church at the same time contributes to as much, or even more traffic, than renters who are leaving and exiting three new buildings at different times.
One of the readers of InsideRealEstateNews had the same question, posting this comment on Friday on my blog: “John – mentioned in the meeting was the fact that the church is used by hundreds of families/kids for activities during the week, and for date night babysitting. I would be curious to know how much those activities now affect parking and traffic, and if the addition of multi-family housing unit dwellers would make any more impact, or possibly less impact if they have a parking garage for their vehicles?”
It seems one could argue that traffic is traffic, whether generated by renters or church-goers. Brad Buchanan, the architect hired by RedPeak, said a traffic study will be conducted. It will be fascinating to learn what it concludes.
Architect Brad Buchanan fields questions at the listening session sponsored by Councilwoman Susan Shepherd.
38th zoning calls for three-story buildings
3. Right development, wrong place. One constant from many of the opponents has been that this is a “great development at the wrong place.” Numerous people have said that it would be more appropriate along West 38th Avenue. However, I hadn’t heard from anyone from that area six-blocks north of the site. I wondered if they would welcome five-story buildings near their homes and was prepared to make some calls. But with a bit more research, I discovered that apparently is a moot point. Almost all of 38th Avenue between Sheridan and Federal boulevards is zoned U-MS-3, allowing a maximum height of three stories.
4. On board with the right plan? Another oft-repeated battle-cry from opponents is that they are not anti-development, but only this development in particular, which they believe is the result of a zoning error. I believe them.
Yet, a number of the speakers, including shop owners along West 32nd Avenue, voiced concerns of what 18 months of construction would do to their businesses. That is totally understandable, especially in light of the toll on merchants along Tennyson Street during its construction.
On the other hand, if the parcels are down-zoned to three stories from five, it would have an incremental impact on the construction time-line. It would trim 3 1/2 months to 4 months from the 18-month construction process, a veteran Denver developer, who is only vaguely aware of the RedPeak project, told me today. In other words, the area would still be a construction zone for more than a year, under a best-case scenario. Since a number of people at the meeting voiced skepticism that it would only take 18 months to complete, would they welcome a smaller project that by their assumptions would still take a year and a half or more to complete?
Other observations
Separate from the meeting, I feel the need to make some other observations.
I have been criticized for writing an article that cites numerous studies that found that nationwide, high-density developments do not tend to lower nearby home values. In some cases, homes near high-density developments appreciate a bit more than the overall market.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what these studies are saying.
Tall buildings cast shadows, block views
The studies are not claiming that some people will not be robbed of sunlight and views by tall buildings. Without a doubt, losing views or sunshine or green-space is heart-wrenching. If you are forced to look at an ugly building, or a concrete wall, the psychic pain is all that much greater. Do you deserve that fate, just because you didn’t keep tabs on potential land-use and stop it dead in its tracks? Sure, that’s easy to say, but the truth is it would be generous to say that is on the radar screen of even 2 percent of the population until they are confronted with the possibility of bulldozers tearing up the ground.
However, keep in mind that every building casts shadows and most buildings – most likely including the house you live in – blocks a view of someone else, just as your neighbor’s house blocks your view to some extent, especially if you live in a city. If you live on a ranch in Elbert County that will not be a problem, but it also means you can’t step out your door and walk to Stella’s or bang!
That aside, what the research shows is that the benefits of well-built, dense buildings can increase the vibrancy of a neighborhood, making it that more attractive to home buyers. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to think that a certain percentage of people who are paying rent of $1,400 to north of $2,000 each month will ultimately buy a home in the area.
Of course, maintaing the value in your home may be small comfort if you lose something precious like a view, which can be priceless, even if you can’t hang a specific dollar amount on it.
Along the same lines, some people have criticized these studies because some have included cities such as Chicago, where big buildings are more common than in Denver.
I used to live in Chicago (2400 North and 3200 North, which you will only understand if you are from the Windy City with its grid-street system.) I assure you there are many pockets in Chicago that are very comparable to West Highland. Chicago is more than downtown, the Loop and the Gold Coast. Indeed, some neighborhoods in Chicago, such as Wicker Park, not only share many traits of West Highland – such as a historic housing stock and a bustling, walkable retail and restaurant area – but it also has weathered neighbors protesting numerous apartment developments they considered too dense and not a good fit.
And when I took my brother-in-law, Bruce Horowitz, to West Highland about a dozen years ago, he surprised me by saying it reminded him of the part of Brooklyn where he grew up. Indeed, we had lunch that afternoon at Heidi’s Brooklyn Deli.
Could be the first down-zoning of its kind
On another issue, it has been pointed out since the massive rezoning took place, a number of properties have been down-zoned, the argument being that down-zoning these parcels is not the ordeal that some in the city have argued.
The first part is correct.
The Denver Planning Board has considered about 15 zoning changes since the overhaul of the zoning code took place in June 2010.
There are two ways to look at it: That represents, on average, almost one zoning change request per month since the zoning code was overhauled. On the other hand, they represent 0.01 percent of the 150,000 parcels in Denver that were rezoned.
But more importantly, when I asked the Denver Community Planning and Development department how many of the zoning change requests came from someone who did not own the land, the answer was: “Zero. All have been with the consent of the owner.”
In other words, convince Tom Wootten, who owns the parcels with partners, to down-zone the land and it will be a slam-dunk.
Good theater, but were people respectful?
Finally, anyone who attended Wednesday night’s meeting knows it didn’t exactly follow Robert’s Rules of Order.
People shouted out questions and comments throughout much of the night. As a reporter who has covered thousands and thousands of mind-numbing, tedious meetings and trials during the past 35 years, I thought it made for very good theater.
And since no one was shouting fire in a crowded theater, it was certainly was within their First Amendment rights. It also was exactly what I had expected, because in this increasingly polarized society, there seems to be little or no tolerance of opposing views, whether you are on the right or the left.
On the other hand, Buchanan, by my count, called out the names of at least nine people who, like Elvis, had left the building, before it was their turn at the microphone.
Many of them, I’m sure, would have spoken against the project.
Chilling effect on supporter
On the other hand, one person told me she was planning to speak in favor of the RedPeak proposal, but ducked out before her name was called because she was scared.
“I was intimidated,” said the person, a resident of West Highland for more than 15 years, who is not a public figure and had no desire to be publicly derided. “I didn’t want people booing me and yelling at me.”
She said that people were so full of rage that the thought even crossed her mind that someone might find out where she lives and smash her car windows, if she dared take an unpopular stand.
The woman also didn’t think the behavior of many in the crowd reflected well on the neighborhood that she loves as dearly as any of the opponents to RedPeak’s proposal, but for environmental, social and diversity reasons, welcomes a mix of housing.
“I was embarrassed. Some of the people there seemed so nasty. I can’t believe they’re my neighbors.”
At the same time, she not only believes that the residents have every right to pursue a down-zoning, she thinks they are right to do so.
“Honestly, I have two minds about it,” she said. “Even though I knew the zoning change was happening – there were signs all over the place; you would have had to be blind not to see them – I didn’t pay too much attention. I like density and I think density is good for a city. We have to make the city more dense. The alternative is suburban sprawl that increases our commutes, pollutes the air and eats up our farm land. I also want to see a diversity of housing in this neighborhood. We can’t just be a neighborhood of single-family homes. I would support affordable housing on that site, if RedPeak walks away.”
Still, listening to some of the arguments of the neighbors, especially those on Meade Street, she admitted they were not without merit, and she sympathized with their concerns. That was reinforced when I told her the land had initially been re-zoned to allow only two-story buildings.
She just wishes the people had been a little nicer when presenting their side of the case.
“I really felt sorry for Susan Shepherd,” the city councilwoman who put together the listening session, and was jeered when she didn’t immediately support a call for a down-zoning. Some already are talking about efforts to recall her,
“Susan really looked like a doe caught in a headlight. I don’t think she was prepared for that kind of a reaction.”
Anyone wishing to volunteer for a citizen committee regarding the proposed RedPeak project should email info@westhighlandneighborhood.org and include any qualifications or expertise you might have that could be a benefit to the process. The committee expects to have its first meeting on the week of Dec. 5.
John Rebchook, who has lived in West Highland since 1984, can be reached at JRCHOOK@gmail.com
Thank you.
John,
Great piece! This is a very complicated issue and both sides have very valid concerns. Although, I do need to take issue with only one point. The NYC Deli’s are much, much better than Heidi’s (not that Heidi’s is not good, but it’s not NYC good).
John, thank you for your continued coverage of this issue. I think you’re doing a great job.
I would like to see the comparison between the impact of this type of vertical construction and street improvements like Tennyson Street be used less. Businesses on Tennyson were harmed because their street was entirely closed at times and sidewalks were disrupted. This type of vertical construction may mean lost parking spots, but little else. Places like Pizza Alley, Chipotle and Heidis would be helped by all of the construction workers if they chose to buy lunch and the shops wouldn’t have their streets closed. I think this comparison is simple fear mongering to gain support on the anti-development side.
I’m also sad to hear that a supporter of the project felt intimidated and scared to speak her mind. All should be able to have their voices heard, lord knows the opposition is being heard.
Neighbors who want to live in a dynamic, vibrant and sustainable city need to be willing to have development in their neighborhood.
Street closures for RedPeak would be limited to what they are permitted for by the City. There can be no ad hoc closures and are normally limited to adjacent ROW and parking lane. The new apartment construction at 16th and Boulder (across from Lola) is a good example
Mr. Rebchook:
Thank you for your insight into the positive and negative effects of urban density and your comparative views of West Highlands to Brooklyn and Chicago. Likewise, your observation that other areas of Denver may very well be in the dark about the scale of development allowable under the “massive overhaul of the zoning code” is sadly true. In fact, the future Denver designed into the new Zoning Code will accommodate massive numbers of new citizens, far beyond numbers of which most Denver citizens are aware of and far exceeding the capacities of our existing or planned infrastructure or water supplies. But then Malthus was wrong, right? We will and should be able to grow population exponentially and indefinitely and still be sustainable. Wrong, we should know better by now. How we grow and sustain will require new paradigms, not solely, the need for more urban density.
Despite your eloquent and objective analysis, however, you have forgotten one most critically important fact pertinent to the current situation and, in fact, to all of Highland Square along West 32nd Avenue. Mr. Peter Park, Denver’s former Planning Director/Geek/Guru who initiated the new zoning code, touted and often cited as its rationale the need to adopt zoning for neighborhoods and business districts contextually. That is, to determine the zone districts in context of the existing context/character of neighborhoods, based on the desires of these neighborhoods’ citizens and, not to be forgotten, on what our City officials have oft claimed as the holy bible of Denver planning, Blue Print Denver.
What the old code allowed was not to be as relevant as this “contextual” concept and in addition, whether the area was seen under Blue Print Denver as one of “stability” or “change”. No matter that the “Now a Church” RedPeak property was zone R4 which allowed for eight stories to be massed somewhere on the zone lot. No matter that the R4 was the result of an anomaly that under the old zoning code that resulted in all kinds of institutional properties being R5 and R4 because the code lumped churches, schools, health care facilities, etc, with large scale residential zones. In fact, to change everything was possible, not only because it was desirable, but because zoning powers allow cities to do just about anything its government decides it to be in the public interest (with a few exceptions and grey areas). However, it should have mattered that West Highland was actually an area of “stability”. So here is where the clean slate really should have applied. But Blue Print Denver can cut both ways when the City so decides and the Councilman at the time, but on his way out, Mr. Richard Garcia, made a decision based on his vision or that of others with whom he talked about which the majority of citizens were not aware.
Now these thousand or more NW Denver citizens (who most likely do represent thousands more, with the exception of the always present rude and shrill fringe who, lacking finesse, often resort to intimidation) have been informed of what their government has planned for their neighborhood, do not like what they see and they are ready to “Occupy RedPeak”. Government says, “Too bad, you were asleep at the wheel, we had hundreds of meetings and you weren’t there. Never mind the ink is barely dry and nothing has been done yet. “You’re SOL” (Straight Out of Luck).
What these thousand or more citizens, for the most part, still don’t realize is that not only is the “Now a Church” RedPeak property zoning out of context with their vision of the neighborhood, but also so is the zoning for all of their beloved Highland Square Business District. When built out to the allowable zoning the area around 32nd and Lowell will look nothing like what NW Denver residents love…the variety and character of the mostly one and two story commercial buildings. The now quaint business district will be three story block buildings all lined up like a Main Street – like, well…Belmar. In fact, 38th, Colfax, Tennyson will all be like Belmar. Some people really like the Disneyesque suburban Belmar style and actually, the five story RedPeak behemoth will really not be that out of place (when new, three-story buildings line 32nd.) It is actually, just the tip of the iceberg….literally (upside down, though).
Well, this rezoning process, despite what our cheer-leading City Council and Denver bureaucrats now claim as model for citizen involvement, was flawed. It is interesting that during the new zoning code process, the same city officials often assuaged neighborhood concerns by saying, “We realize it won’t be perfect, that there will need to be changes…” This was only a little over a year ago. Their promises are still fresh in the minds of those who cared and knew others would also, once they became aware of the zoning change impacts. Mayor Hickenlooper was urged to widely promote to Denver’s citizen the fact that the city was being rezoned. He was asked to make a one-minute television and radio Public Service Announcement about the need and right of citizens to get involved how their own and neighborhood properties use and values would be effected. He agreed but later, chose not to do so. Besides, had the citizens known, there are certainly no guarantees that the “public process” would have reflected what the public actually wants. The St. Anthony’s redevelopment process included lots of public input in the process, yet key neighborhood concerns expressed in these sessions were ignored by City planners in the final version of the Plan.
The zoning of the “Now a Church” property RedPeak under contract and some of the zoning of Highland Square, West Colfax, West 38th and Tennyson Street is flawed and deserves to be reviewed, this time with complete transparency and the amount of citizen involvement and awareness that such drastic changes warrant. This issue is not really one of growth vs. no growth, change vs. no change. It should be a discussion of what the law consistently uses as a standard. “What is reasonable?” Upon this standard, it is likely the majority of NW Denver residents would ultimately judge a good deal of the new zoning not reasonable. One can only hope that this proposed development is viewed and mitigated as part of what NW Denver citizens will become aware, are much larger mistakes in planning.
Larry raises an interesting point by citing the red herring that keeps cropping up but is factually inaccurate: “Government says, ‘Too bad, you were asleep at the wheel, we had hundreds of meetings and you weren’t there.’”
As the Registered Neighborhood Organization, the West Highland Neighborhood Association WAS at these meetings and had numerous other official, on-the-record meetings with the city about these zoning issues, during which it repeatedly lodged specific, official objections. The city by its own design considers the RNO to be the official voice of the neighborhood in these matters; WE therefore WERE at these meetings via the WHNA and WE were involved in numerous other official conversations/negotiations with the people who nevertheless — and for reasons they will not be able to conceal forever — plowed ahead with what Larry and everyone else with common sense knows is flawed zoning.
The claim that the community was not involved in the many meetings and deliberations if flatly false, it is a talking point likely spread by the developer and by the hidebound career bureaucrats at the City Planning Department to justify the mess they’ve created and do not want to straighten out for the benefit of both sides. The neighborhood was represented in all of these contexts just as a member of Congress represents their district as much (if not more) in their offices and in one-on-one conversations as they dot on the floor of the House or Senate.
Dear Mr. Rebchook,
I was provide a copy of your screed and, like most of your stuff going back into the Rocky past, I read it with interest.
I fully understand the importance of commercial development in the City. But I wish to offer you the idea that the real purpose of the city is to provide acceptable, nurturing housing for its residents. Yes, they need a job, a place to shop, places for entertainment, etc. But ultimately they need a neighborhood community. Man is a social animal. We need others. When neighborhood communities show up in numbers to protest change, it is incumbent on the city, developers and the media to acknowlege what they are defending. These people are defending their connections to each other. The value of those connections may be valued by evaluating our investment in governmental “social” programs – from cops to welfare. Where communities exist, many of these services are provided by neighbors. Mothers help new moms learn about maternity, childbirth, infant care, child care, etc. I cite the kit of medical equipment (crutches, grabbers, sock puller uppers, raised toilet seats) which circulates around my senior neighbors as they have their crickety hips and knees replaced. I include nosy neighbors in the benefits and also the blessing of long-term neighbors among newbies.
Yes, we need to develop and grow. We also need to nurture and protect.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Tom Morris
Mr. Rebchook,
I very much appreciate your interesting and, frankly, brave account of the RedPeak Meeting and this development generally. I am writing to add my comments:
-I live near the proposed development, but am also wary of speaking out in favor of the project. From the beginning, the tone has been incondusive to rational dialogue (see below).
-This said, whatever support I once had for the development is eroding. In short, this is quickly becoming developer amateur hour. Who holds open-ended four hour lions-den bitch-sessions? On anything? Where comments cannot be submitted in writing? When there’s no actual action item being considered? Where the developer seems to be content on hiding the ball? With no polished road show by the developer? If “No High Rises” is the only means of addressing the project’s shortcomings, then maybe I take the good with the bad and cast my lot with them.
-So, Mr. Rebchook, in all the years you’ve been doing this, have you seen anything like this kind of reaction to something like a five-story luxury apartment building? Where hundreds of people show up right on time and start creating an uproar right on cue? You know, like a vital and enthusiastic church congregation that might be losing its short term lease. A short term lease where that congregation might be making good money renting the facilities out to concerts, movie showings, etc. And maybe a developer or two might have suggested at some point that the short term lease might be extended, or maybe that the church might be able to keep using part of the property? Or maybe Redpeak’s silly high-ball estimate of what could be crammed into those buildings is just that over-the-top.
-Or are there other issues at play? Bright young Highlanders pissed-off at rising rents imposed by the 1%? A competing developer/development with a flair for grassroots movement? The spearhead of a larger legal movement against problems with Blueprint Denver? I have no idea – you’re the reporter, and your off-the-cuff comments here may not address the underlying issues, if there are any. What you’re writing is an interesting start, but you could go further.
Thanks, and I will continue to follow your coverage of the RedPeak development.
FYI to your second point, “Who holds open-ended four hour lions-den bitch-sessions?” this meeting was scheduled by Councilwoman Shepherd, although if you actually attended the meeting it was clear from the outset that she was facilitating it as a convenience for Red Peak and Brad Buchanan (her addressing of Mr. Buchanan as “our” architect spoke volumes) and she clearly let them run it however they saw fit.
But let’s not linger on the propriety of our elected representative allowing a non-constituent to run what amounted to a constituent meeting. If you want to make a written submission of your perspective on this issue, Councilwoman Shepherd has made it clear she welcomes the input. Although you WOULD have to identify yourself to her by name. That’s not a problem, is it?
Thank you John for your insight. You brought up an interesting observation, and a few commenters have reinforced that point of view: it sure would be nice for people to simply behave with civility and present cogent and thoughtful arguments. I realized that I too was one of those who spoke with rage and condescension in conversations as well as on my web writings. However, I decided that it is best not to do that — ever. It only results in more anger and unnecessarily galvanizes points of view instead of allowing dialog and compromise. I prefer to present my opinion and then let people think about it. Some folks will reject it, some will accept parts of it, and some will agree with me. I cannot control which folks will do what. But, I can at least share my thoughts and hope that rational people will share theirs with me.
West Highland reminds ME of the section of Brooklyn where I used to live in the 1980s, Boerum Hill. It’s a great example because no New York City developer was so stupid as to try to force an out-of-context project into the neighborhood; they knew they would lose and lose badly. The highest density new construction all gravitated to areas such as downtown Brooklyn — right next to Boerum Hill — where it was desired AND appropriate, rather than trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
As for the Mercy Housing red herring, let’s try this again: The problem is the MASS of the proposed Red Peak structures and their out-of-context placement along RESIDENTIAL streets under the cloak flawed Main Street zoning. It does not matter WHO is living in the buildings, it matters what the SIZE of the buildings are going to be.
And give up the bogus “R-4 would have been worse” canard. It’s an inaccurate developer’s talking point and you know it. If it is accurate, than produce for us all a technically accurate architect’s plan that shows an R-4 project on those sites, calculated to meet the limit of the zoning, and then everyone can compare it later with whatever miracle plan Brad Buchanan creates. Good luck with that.