DenverInfill Blog

The site's schedule says the top out will be in October of this year and be completed in January of next. Awesome. Another building to show off to the DNC!
 

This is one very cool looking building!
 

Did this project get DURA funding? If it did, according to this lady, it would he huring the Denver economy. (I know this doesn't really apply to the Sugar 3 building...I just needed somewhere to post the article for discussion).

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/other_business/article/0,2777,DRMN_23916_5374430,00.html
 

> Did this project get DURA funding?
> If it did, according to this lady,
> it would he hurting the Denver economy.

The types of sprawling development the author advocates over infill development has always been heavily subsidized from the beginning until today.

Believe me, no shopping mall, "power center", "lifestyle mall", or Wal-Mart gets built in Colorado without massive government subsidies using the same TIF mechanism that the author disdains for infill development. (Example: the "Centerra" shopping center in Loveland got hundreds of millions of TIF subsidies by declaring the farmland on which it sat "urban blight" requiring subsidies to "redevelop")

As for residential development, the billions we hand out in taxpayer funding to support freeway expansion, additional freeway interchanges, water reclamation projects, etc for the purpose of subsidizing sprawling fringe suburban growth make any small subsidies given to infill projects look like child's play.

I'd be perfectly happy cutting off subsidies to new urbanist development, the day after we make sprawling growth pay its own way. Since the latter will never happen, it seems only fair to gain a few subsidy dollars for infill projects.
 

This article is ridiculous. The fact that the author works for the Independence Institute (think Jon Caldera) speaks for itself. She is a supporter of sprawl, traffic, pollution and irresponsible development.

The claim she makes that planners and city officials can declare anything as being blighted is unbelievably inaccurate. As a graduate of CU-Denver's Urban and Regional Planning program and a student of Ken's Planning Methods class, I am familiar with the process of declaring blight. It is not simple, and cannot be done on a whim, as the author of this article suggests.

Also, the use of TIFs is not as extreme as she suggests. What Ms. Lang negelects to mention is that TIFs are only used with retail development. You cannot use a TIF to fund a residential project, the bonds issued to fund a TIF are repaid through sales taxes only. She also implies that planners are "socially-engineering" our lifestyles with no regard for the free-hand of the market. This is also ridiculous. There is clear-cut demand for transit-oriented development, and it is not planners driving the developments, it is the market.

Yes, taxpayers have funded a great deal of development, but it is not sunk costs. A TIF is always fully repaid. It is more of an investment in new projects rather than a pure monetary gift to developers.

To anonymous of above, I would love to see some evidence that every single wal-mart in Colorado was subsidized by taxpayers. There is no way that is correct. I would be willing to bet that the number of subsidized wal-marts, power centers, lifestyle centers, etc. are in the minority. Also, Centerra did not receive TIFs anywhere near the 9 figure mark. The whole development itself cost less than $100 million to construct. Again, please support you claims.
 

central street is by far the hottest (and shortest) street in denver....much of the area between 16th and 19th is zoned for 80 feet which is driving the boom .....along with the new bridge and amazing views.